WRITTEN QUESTION E-2190/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Fisheries — Western waters — Public anxiety about the imminent incursion of Spanish fisheries into Portuguese coastal waters.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing area, fishing fleet, fishing regulations, public opinion

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/143

Commission has offered all its assistance to the Italian Presidency and the Council with a view to ensuring
that the negotiations on the two outstanding legislative proposals can be finished as soon as possible, but
in any case by the new deadline set by the European Council in Thessaloniki.

One response by a number of Member States to unauthorised migration is the regularisation of
4.
foreigners residing illegally on their territory. Different practices and procedures are used; some are carried
out on a regular basis without any time limitation and others are one-off procedures or programmes
which, however, may be repeated from time to time. While precise figures are not available, a study of
such practices in eight Member States (1) (Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Netherlands,
United Kingdom) carried out by researchers at the Université Libre de Bruxelles concluded that over the
period 1973 to 1999 some 1 845 000 persons in total were regularised. Further programmes have since
been carried out in Greece, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal. The Commission does not have precise
figures on the numbers of those regularised since 1999. Some Member States fix quotas for the admission
of labour migrants. In some cases these are overall annual totals, in others quotas may be fixed within
bilateral agreements with third countries, by sector or within the framework of ‘green card’ systems or
other arrangements. Other Member States do not fix quotas but issue work permits following procedures
related to demand in the national labour market. At present, the Commission does not have complete
information on quota numbers where they exist.

The extent

5.
to which access to programmes organised by educational establishments in the
Community are open to third-country nationals is a matter for the Member States and, in some cases,
for the establishments themselves. But on 7 October 2002 the Commission adopted a proposal under the
common immigration policy for a directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country
nationals for the purposes of studies, vocational training or voluntary service with the aim of promoting
the admission of the persons concerned by the authorities responsible for entry and residence of foreigners
once they are admitted by an educational establishment.

(1) De Bruycker, Ph. ‘Regularisation of Illegal Aliens in the European Union’, Brussels Bruylant, 2000.

(2004/C 58 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2190/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Fisheries (cid:1) Western waters (cid:1) Public anxiety about the imminent incursion of Spanish fisheries

into Portuguese coastal waters

Following on from my last question (E-2153/03 (1)), I wish to draw attention to another article from an
independent source on the matter at issue, published in the Portuguese quality press. To quote part of the
article: The fishing episode has recurred at intervals since the early days of Portugal’s membership of what
was then the EEC. There is no stopping our partners. I clearly remember that when our country was still
negotiating to join the European economic area (and receiving substantial ‘pre-accession’ financial aid), the
most perceptive folk in Brussels were already saying that fisheries was to be Portugal’s real quid pro quo
‘They don’t mind sending money to Portugal or helping with this or that,
for its Community partners.
because, thanks to fisheries (cid:1) in other words, future access to Portuguese waters (cid:1) they will be amply
rewarded for the support that they are giving now’, a Portuguese journalist working in Brussels told me in
the early 1980s. So much for national wealth. The money of exchange which our Community partners
will be demanding to the tune of half as much again. Because, of course, it is not all handouts, contrary to
what others would so often have us believe. There comes a time when people have to pay. They pay with
such assets as they might possess:
lot of sea. Spaniards,
Dutchmen, and Danes are queuing up for their admission tickets. And they have a mighty fishing armada
capable, with half the crew numbers, of catching twice or three times as much as the Portuguese. It is
fortunate that we are still lagging behind because that enables us to land a little fresh fish to eat and sell
and, at the same time, maintain reasonable stocks in the sea that can regenerate at their natural pace. That

in our case, that means the sea. An awful

C 58 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

is something which has already disappeared from seas in other parts of the world, which have been fished
dry by fishing technology and the relentless business tactics of the ‘big boys’. The same thing is in danger
of happening in our 200-mile exclusive zone if and when it is invaded by all those European ships. By
stopping them we would not just be looking after ourselves and our national wealth; we would be helping
to preserve a heritage which belongs to the whole world and to which we (cid:1) backward though we may be
(cid:1) pose little or no threat (Joaquim Fidalgo, Público, 18 June 2003).

Though perfectly understandable in view of the seriousness of the matter, the impassioned tone of the
article is not the essential point.

(cid:1) Is the Commission aware of the strong hostility to the Union which the unfair and inept handling of
this matter could prompt among broad sections of the public in Member States, not least in Portugal?

(cid:1) Does it realise that no one can simply stand by and accept a situation in which, in the name of
‘equality’ that exists only apparently and the concept of so-called ‘non-discrimination’, an attempt is to
be made to subject both the Portuguese fisheries sector and Portuguese coastal seas up to the 200-mile
limit to arrangements which, all things considered, given the policy that has been pursued for years at
the instigation of the Union and the Communities, would in fact discriminate against the Portuguese?

(cid:1) How does it respond to the complaints that free access to the seas in question will seriously jeopardise
the Portuguese and Community fishery resources which have been conserved so carefully and in an
exemplary fashion through the years, entailing high economic and social costs that have been borne
solely by Portugal’s fishermen and its fisheries sector?

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 210.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

In the reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2153/03, the Commission has already
outlined the general and basic principle of the Common Fisheries Policy that Community fishing vessels
the baselines and why the transitional
have equal access to waters beyond 12 nautical miles off
arrangements for Portuguese continental waters in International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
(ICES) area IX cannot be upheld.

The Common Fisheries Policy adopted by the Community based on Article 37 of the EC Treaty aims at
sustainable management of fisheries resources. According to the Common Fisheries Policy all waters under
the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States are regarded as Community waters, except for waters
around the overseas countries and territories listed in Annex II to the EC Treaty. Given that Portugal is a
Member State of the Community, Portuguese waters are therefore also Community waters, in exactly the
same way as is the case for Danish, Spanish or Dutch waters. In Community waters, conservation and
other measures regarding fisheries are taken in accordance with Community procedures, based (cid:1) as in all
Community policies (cid:1) on the principle of non-discrimination.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it is concerned to ensure the conservation of
fisheries resources in Portuguese waters, as much as in any other area of the Community. If there are
conservation problems in Portuguese waters,
they should indeed be regulated through conservation
measures adopted at Community level. The Common Fisheries Policy provides us with the adequate
instruments to do so. The Commission is always prepared to examine claims of this kind and to take any
necessary action. However the Commission does not believe that conservation purposes may be achieved
simply by denying fishing access to vessels from other Member States.

Finally the removal of the previous division of ICES area IX, where the main bulk of the Portuguese
continental waters is situated, does not mean that new quotas will be opened for other Member States in
this area. It simply means that Member States which already have quotas in area IX will be able to take
them anywhere in this area, except for the waters within 12 nautical miles from the coasts which continue
to be reserved for local fisheries.