8. EU-GREENLAND FISHERIES PROTOCOL
(24076)
15297/02
COM(02) 697
|
Commission Communication: mid-term review of the Fourth Fisheries Protocol between the EU and Greenland.
|
| Legal base: | —
|
| |
| Document originated: | 3 December 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 10 December 2002
|
| Department: | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 7 January 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None
|
| To be discussed in Council: | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Cleared
|
Background
8.1 When Greenland withdrew from the Community in 1985,
it became an Overseas Country and Territory (OCT), with emphasis
being placed on the need for co-operation and development. Also,
in view of its particular reliance on fisheries, a special Protocol
to the withdrawal Treaty gave Greenland unrestricted and duty-free
access to the Community market for fisheries products in return
for satisfactory Community access to Greenland waters under a
fisheries agreement. The first such agreement was concluded for
an initial period of ten years, and has since been extended for
additional six-year periods. The current agreement runs until
the end of 2006, and the Commission has sought in this Communication
to carry out a mid-term review of its operation.
The current document
8.2 The Commission points out that the Fisheries Agreement
has provided the Community with both catch quotas in Greenland
waters and special priority on access to supplementary catch possibilities
in those waters, in return for the payment of financial compensation.
It also provides that the Community's catch quotas may be taken
by non-Community vessels to the extent this is necessary for the
proper functioning of fisheries agreements between the Community
and third countries, such as the Faroes, Iceland and Norway. In
addition, however, the Agreement is intended to facilitate development,
and the money given to Greenland for this purpose (equal to the
financial assistance it received when it was part of the Community)
is made available only through the Agreement. As a consequence,
Greenland (unlike other OCTs) cannot receive financial assistance
from the European Development Fund, and it has also managed its
development policy in an autonomous way, rather than in co-operation
with the Community.
8.3 Against this background, the Commission says that
the operation of the Fisheries Agreement must be assessed in the
light of the overall situation in Greenland. In particular, it
points not only to the problems arising from the country's huge
reliance on fisheries as a means of meeting its almost total dependence
on imports, but also to the particular difficulties arising from
its climate and widely dispersed population, and to the dangers
posed by such factors as the depletion of the fish stocks, global
pollution, climate change, and plans for increased oil and gas
activities in the Arctic. The Commission also comments on the
relative weakness of the private sector within Greenland, and
the consequent need for large-scale public interventions from
the Danish Government.
8.4 The Communication goes on to suggest that, although
the Fisheries Agreement has provided undoubted benefits for both
Greenland and the Community, there are a number of persistent
and growing shortcomings. In particular:
- the quantities of fish available have been worth very much
less than the level of financial compensation, and in practice
the quantities actually caught have been much lower than the quotas
provided for;
- unlike the fisheries agreement with other countries, there
is no specific provision for targeted action to support Greenland's
efforts to modernise or restructure its fisheries sector, leading
to criticism by the Court of Auditors and European Parliament
about the lack of transparency and the need for compliance with
the usual budgetary rules on development co-operation;
- the link in the Agreement between the financial contribution
paid and the amount of fish caught encourages over-exploitation
of the stocks.
8.5 The Commission therefore suggests that:
- the Protocol should be adjusted to ensure greater transparency
and consistency with overall Community rules on budgetary and
development policy;
- there is a strategic need to broaden and strengthen the future
relations between the Community and Greenland, linking it with
more general moves towards sustainable development in the Arctic
region.
8.6 More specifically, it proposes a two-stage approach
under which the arrangements until 2006 would be amended to stop
the over-exploitation of the stocks by reducing the amount of
fish the Community receives from Greenland, whilst providing the
same amount of compensation. In addition, some of this compensation
would be ear-marked for the structural reform of the Greenland
fishing industry. As from 2007, any payments under the Agreement
would relate only to fishing opportunities, with development aid
being provided under a new "partnership for sustainable development",
which might perhaps replace Greenland's OCT status.
The Government's view
8.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 7 January 2003,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons) at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley) says
that in general the UK welcomes the aim of making these arrangements
more transparent, and of structuring the fisheries aspects separately
from Greenland's development needs. He adds that this would address
criticisms that the agreement provides poor value for money as
compared with other fisheries agreements.
8.8 However, the Minister also points out that the agreement
is valuable, both in helping to balance agreements with the Faroes,
Iceland and Norway, and in providing opportunities for UK distant
water fishermen, even though these are at present very limited
in practice, especially for cod.[24]
The Government is therefore conscious of the need to be careful
about any attempts to reduce the available fishing opportunities,
particularly in view of the fleet's current difficulties, and
the Minister stresses the need for any adjustment to maintain
the possibility of increased fishing opportunities for the Community
should the stocks recover.
Conclusion
8.9 Although the main impact of this Communication
seems likely to be on Greenland's wider relationship with the
Community, there could clearly be implications in both the short
and long term for the catching opportunities available in the
area for Community vessels, including those from the UK. As we
have noted, these are at present limited, but they could nevertheless
be of some potential significance, particularly in view of the
constraints currently faced by the fishing fleet in other waters
nearer home. For that reason, we think it right, in clearing the
document, to draw it to the attention of the House.
24 The
UK quotas agreed for 2003 provide for 364 tonnes of cod, 280 tonnes
of redfish, 193 tonnes of Greenland halibut, and 86 tonnes of
Roundnose Grenadier. Back
|
