WRITTEN QUESTION E-2153/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Fisheries — public concern over announced incursion of Spanish fisheries into Portuguese coastal waters.
Date: 2003-06-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, Spain, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing area, fishing fleet, public opinion

C 51 E/210

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

The concept of employment used for some Eurostat statistics is not fully consistent with the concept
defined in the SME Recommendation. The concept of ‘persons’ in Article 7 refers essentially to the concept
in Article 5 (2), but as the count of part-timers, seasonal
of ‘staff headcount’ and ‘annual work units’
workers, apprentices, etc. is not fully reflected in the currently available statistical data, the more neutral
expression of ‘persons’ was used. The Eurostat statistics can, however, be used as a good proxy and
constitute a solid basis for an analysis of the SMEs in the Union. In fact, Eurostat does already release
regular publications on SMEs based on the available statistical information. The latest publications released
are ‘SMEs in Europe: Competitiveness, innovation and the knowledge driven society’ in the Detailed Tables
series and a Statistics in Focus ‘Enterprises in Europe (cid:1) does size matter?’.

The taking into account of all criteria (turnover, balance sheet total and the calculations for partner and
linked enterprises) in Eurostat statistics is not foreseen in the near future. The main purpose for the
financial criteria and the consideration of connections between enterprises is in fact to determine the
access to state aid schemes and funding programmes on an individual basis per enterprise. This is not
relevant for general statistical purposes. This of course does not exclude specific statistics in the context of
state aid or participation in funding programmes,
for instance the 6th Research and Technological
Development (RTD) Framework Programme, as for these purposes the full criteria of the SME definition
will be used to determine the size-class of beneficiary enterprises.

Changes to the existing regulatory framework for statistics collected by Eurostat may result in considerable
additional burden for data providers and businesses and they therefore have to be carefully planned and
discussed well in advance. However, further important issues regarding SMEs will be explored by Eurostat
in the near future. These include a major developing project to record in business registers ownership and
control links between enterprises. In this way SMEs, which should be autonomous according to Article 3
of the Recommendation and not part of an enterprise group, can be better distinguished.

(1) Article 7 (cid:1) Statistics

The Commission will take the necessary measures to present the statistics that it produces in accordance with the
following size-classes of enterprises:
(a) 0 to 1 person;
(b) 2 to 9 persons;
(c) 10 to 49 persons;
(d) 50 to 249 persons.
(2) Article 5 (cid:1) Staff headcount

The headcount corresponds to the number of annual work units (AWU), i.e. the number of persons who worked
full-time within the enterprise in question or on its behalf during the entire reference year under consideration. The
work of persons who have not worked the full year, the work of those who have worked part-time, regardless of
duration, and the work of seasonal workers are counted as fractions of AWU.
The staff consists of:
(a) employees;
(b) persons working for the enterprise being subordinated to it and deemed to be employees under national law;
(c) owner-managers;
(d) partners engaging in a regular activity in the enterprise and benefiting from financial advantages from the
enterprise. Apprentices or students engaged in vocational training with an apprenticeship or vocational training
contract are not included as staff. The duration of maternity or parental leaves is not counted.

(2004/C 51 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2153/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject: Fisheries (cid:1) public concern over announced incursion of Spanish fisheries into Portuguese coastal

waters

The following comments, by a well-known journalist, recently appeared in a major Portuguese newspaper:
‘In the fisheries sector, we have always benefited from the special regime arising from the bilaterally

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/211

negotiated pre-accession agreement, and, believing that our resources would always belong to us, we have
encouraged containment of the fishing effort in our waters, with a view to stock conservation. We have
scrapped vessels, put fishermen out of work, outlawed fishing with driftnets for certain species and
imposed catch limits for others. And now, quite out of the blue, we find ourselves in a defenceless
position. What this means in practice is that we have been conserving our stocks only to allow the Spanish
to step in and decimate them in half-a-dozen years, with a fishing fleet which is the world’s third or fourth
biggest and which, having exhausted the national stocks, is now bent on fishing dry every sea where it is
allowed to operate. To talk of the principle of equality in such conditions is to make a mockery of us.
To surrender the coastal waters of mainland Portugal, the Azores and Madeira and turn the other cheek to
the pillaging Spanish fleet is to give up any idea that we can seek our own advantage within the EU.
Finally, to allow Brussels to impose a so-called policy of equality in the fisheries sector, while blocking all
avenues of reform for the blatant inequalities of the CAP, with its bias in favour of richer Member States
and against poorer ones, is to condemn ourselves once and for all to the fringes of Europe’ (Miguel Sousa
Tavares, ‘Público’, 13 June 2003).

Another journalist writes as follows: ‘The EU is allowing Spain to run a huge, aggressive and pillaging
fishing fleet, thanks to which Morocco was forced to restrict access to its waters for EU fishing vessels
while conflicts are now arising in the Irish Sea. Meanwhile, the EU has obliged Portugal to reduce its own
fleet so as to allow the restructuring in fish-breeding terms of the Portuguese EEZ. It is time for the EU to
ensue that justice is gone and to copy the Canadian strategy [fear is the best taskmaster], introducing fines
on vessels found in breach of the rules (cid:1) a measure for which occasional spot checks should suffice’
(Commander Virgílio de Carvalho, ‘Jornal de Notícias’, 16 June 2003).

While the Portuguese legal position on the matter may not yet have been fully defined, it remains the case
that the issue was recently examined by the European Parliament and that the above positions are
representative of public opinion in Portugal regarding the new fisheries regime in the Western waters and
the EU’s proclaimed intention to open up those waters, within the 200-mile limit, bringing in a free-for-all
regime which will notably benefit
the powerful Spanish fleet, with enormous risks for both stock
conservation and the very survival of the Portuguese fishery.

is the Commission’s position on the above-quoted newspaper articles? What

is its position
What
concerning the increasing feeling in Portugal that the EU is subjecting the country’s primary sector.
especially agriculture and fisheries, to unfair treatment? Can the Commission explain why Portugal, having
adapted and reduced its fishing effort
in a disciplined fashion (with severe economic and social
consequences), in order to preserve fish stocks in the adjacent waters, now has to see those waters openly
pillaged by third parties? Can the Commission explain the existence of this double standard which forces
some to conserve while others pillage?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

It should be recalled that according to Article 17(1) of the framework Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/
2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under
the Common Fisheries Policy (1), a fundamental principle of this policy is that Community fishing vessels
have equal access to waters beyond 12 nautical miles off the baselines.

As a consequence of the 1985 Act of Accession for Spain and Portugal, ICES (2) area IXa was divided
between these two Member States according to their national boundaries. This was, however, clearly a
transitional arrangement, alongside other temporary arrangements for the integration of Portugal and
Spain into the Community, which now must come to an end. The separation between Spanish and
Portuguese waters beyond 12 nautical miles is clearly not in line with Article 17(1) referred to earlier and
it simply cannot be permanently upheld within the Community to exclude access to waters under one
Member State’s jurisdiction for other Member States, neither legally nor politically. This is valid for all
Community waters, not only Portuguese waters. It should also be recalled that this approach has already
been accepted in the total allowable catches (TAC) and Quota Regulation for 2003, adopted by the Council
in December 2002, in which the corresponding separation of ICES area IXa was abolished.

C 51 E/212

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

they should be regulated at
If there are conservation problems appearing in the area in question,
Community level according to the ordinary procedures which are applied within the Common Fisheries
Policy. The Commission is always prepared to examine such claims and to take the necessary action.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.
(2)

ICES: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

(2004/C 51 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2156/03

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Satellite monitoring of fishing vessels under 24 metres in length

Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1) provides that a system for locating and identifying fishing
vessels (satellite monitoring) must also be installed on board vessels exceeding 18 metres in length as from
1 January 2004 and on vessels exceeding 15 metres in length as from 1 January 2005. Up to now, this
requirement has been restricted to fishing vessels exceeding 24 metres in length.

The previous Regulation provided derogations from this obligation for fishing vessels which either
returned to harbour within 24 hours or fished exclusively within the 12-mile zone. This derogation has
been abolished in the new Regulation.

Is the Commission prepared, within the framework of Article 22(3),

1.
derogation for fishing vessels under 24 metres?

to reinstate the current

2.

If so, by what date can such a decision be expected?

3.
If not, does the Commission not take the view that, in the case of small fishing vessels operating
exclusively within the 12-mile zone or returning to harbour within 24 hours, fulfilling these obligations
would create a ‘disproportionate burden (…) compared to the economic importance of the activity’?

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

(2004/C 51 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2157/03

by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Satellite monitoring of fishing vessels under 24 metres in length

Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1) provides that a system for locating and identifying fishing
vessels (satellite monitoring) must also be installed on board vessels exceeding 18 metres in length as from
1 January 2004 and on vessels exceeding 15 metres in length as from 1 January 2005. Up to now, this
requirement has been restricted to fishing vessels exceeding 24 metres in length.

The previous Regulation provided derogations from this obligation for fishing vessels which either
returned to harbour within 24 hours or fished exclusively within the 12-mile zone. This derogation has
been abolished in the new Regulation.

Is the Commission prepared, within the framework of Article 22(3),

1.
derogation for fishing vessels under 24 metres?

to reinstate the current