7 EC-Greenland Fisheries Protocol
| (24971)
13678/03
COM(03)609
| Draft Council Regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol modifying the Fourth Protocol laying down the conditions relating to fishing provided for in the Agreement on fisheries between the European Economic Community, and the Government of Denmark and the Local Government of Greenland.
|
| Legal base | Articles 37, 300(2) and 300(3) EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Document originated | 16 October 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 24 October 2003
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 17 December 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote
|
| To be discussed in Council | During the first half of 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but relevant to any debate on catching opportunities under the Common Fisheries Policy
|
Background
7.1 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 (contained in the Fourth Protocol)[32]
runs until the end of 2006, but was the subject of a mid-term
review[33] by the Commission
at the end of 2002.
7.2 As we noted in our Report of 22 January 2003,
this review suggested that, although the Fisheries Agreement had
provided undoubted benefits for both Greenland and the Community,
there were a number of persistent and growing shortcomings. In
particular:
- the quantities of fish available
had been worth very much less than the level of financial compensation,
with the quantities actually caught in practice having been much
lower than the quotas provided for;
- unlike the fisheries agreement with other countries,
there was no specific provision for targeted action to support
Greenlands 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 encouraged over-exploitation
of the stocks.
7.3 The Commission therefore suggested that the Protocol
should be adjusted to ensure greater transparency and consistency
with overall Community rules on budgetary and development policy,
and that there was a need to broaden and strengthen the future
relations between the Community and Greenland, linking this with
more general moves towards sustainable development in the Arctic
region. More specifically, it proposed 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 earmarked for the structural reform of the Greenland
fishing industry.
The current document
7.4 The Commission has now sought in this proposal
to give effect to the changes to the Protocol which the Community
and Greenland agreed in June 2003. These cover the period from
1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006, and include:
- maintaining the overall financial
compensation at €42.8 million a year, but making a clear
distinction in future between funding to purchase fishing opportunities
(€31.7 million) and budget support for structural reform
of the fisheries industry (€11.1 million);
- deleting a number of "paper" quotas
(cod, blue whiting, capelin, redfish and catfish)[34]
where no catching opportunities exist in practice;
- increasing the quotas for Greenland halibut (from
4,800 to 9,000 tonnes), Atlantic halibut (from 200 to 1,000 tonnes)
and shrimp (from zero to 4,000 tonnes);
- introducing a new quota of 1,000 tonnes for snowcrab.
7.5 In addition, it is proposed that:
- the quotas should be revised
annually, in the light of new scientific advice;
- licence fees should be introduced, based on 3%
of landing prices, with the proviso that the rates can be amended
to take account of the market situation;
- provision should be made for experimental fisheries
on deep sea species, cephalopods and clams;
- there should be a mechanism allowing the Commission
to transfer under-utilised fishing opportunities temporarily from
one Member State to another during the year, without prejudice
to the principle of relative stability.
The Government's view
7.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 17 December
2003, the Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries at the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw)
says that the UK has a number of serious concerns.
7.7 First, he says that the fundamental views of
the main quota holders were ignored by the Commission during the
negotiations, and that no plenary sessions were held with the
Greenland delegation to establish their views. On the substance
of the proposal, he says that the UK:
- opposes the deletion of cod
from the list of quotas species which may be fished in Greenland
waters (where he points out that over 400 tonnes were caught in
2003), and would therefore like to see the quotas re-instated
(or, at the very least, provision made for a higher by-catch);
- would like a mechanism included in the draft
Regulation allowing Greenland quotas to balance other Northern
fisheries agreements, and for the Regulation to specify that additional
fishing opportunities will be purchased if necessary to balance
these agreements;
- questions the need for licence fees (which he
says are not favoured by the Greenland authorities), and the level
proposed: however, if such fees are to be introduced, it would
want them to be deferred under the Fifth Protocol, as from 1 January
2007;
- accepts that quota utilisation should be maximised,
but considers that this should be a matter for Member States to
decide and administer: it therefore opposes giving the Commission
competence to re-allocate any under-utilised quotas.
Conclusion
7.8 Although the quotas currently available to
UK vessels in Greenland waters are not large, they are nevertheless
important for the vessels concerned, and, as the Minister suggests,
this Agreement contributes to the overall balance of fishing opportunities
available in northern waters for the Community as a whole. We
believe there is therefore a case for the issues raised by this
proposal being considered further by the House, and, although
we do not think it necessary for them to be debated on a "stand
alone" basis, they would be relevant to any wider debate
on the catching opportunities available under the Common Fisheries
Policy. Meanwhile, we clear the document.
32 (21873) and (21875); see HC 28-ii (2000-01), paragraph
9 (10 January 2001). Back
33
(24076) 15297/02; see HC 63-ix (2002-03), paragraph 8 (22 January
2003). Back
34
The quotas provided for under the Fourth Protocol are 2,000 tonnes
for cod, 15,000 tonnes for blue whiting, 25,000 tonnes for capelin,
5,500 tonnes for redfish, and 600 tonnes for catfish. Back
|
