Twenty-eighth Report of Session 2013-14 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


14   EU-Madagascar Fisheries Agreement

(35166)

12004/13

COM(13) 488

Draft Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EU) No. 1258/2012 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Madagascar setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force

Legal baseArticle 43(3) TFEU; QMV
Document originated4 July 2013
Deposited in Parliament10 July 2013
DepartmentEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs
Basis of considerationEM of 24 July 2013 and Minister's letter of 10 December 2013
Previous Committee ReportNone
Discussion in CouncilShortly
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Background

14.1  The EU has a number of Fisheries Partnership Agreements with third countries under which its vessels may catch in the waters of the country concerned in exchange for a financial contribution. One such country is Madagascar, with which the EU entered into a new Agreement in 2012, providing fishing opportunities for certain highly migratory species. In particular, 34 EU surface long-liners over 100GT are licensed to catch these, with Spain currently receiving 17 such licences, France nine, Portugal five, and the UK three.

The current proposal

14.2  By-catches of sharks form part of the catches of these vessels, and, following a recommendation by the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, an annual by-catch of 200 tonnes has been set for EU vessels for a period of two years from 1 January 2013. The Commission duly put forward in July 2013 this proposal, which would divide that quantity up between the Member States concerned. However, although Spain would receive 166 tonnes, Portugal 27 tonnes and France seven tonnes, the UK would receive no allocation.

The Government's view

14.3  We initially received an Explanatory Memorandum of 24 July 2013 from the then Minister (Richard Benyon), saying that the Government recognised that none of the UK vessels with a licence had been active in recent years, due to fear of piracy, and that the proposal was unlikely to have any practical effect during the duration of the present Agreement. Nevertheless, he pointed out that piracy concerns have led to a decline in the uptake by other Member States as well, and that the UK vessels could have an interest in returning once the situation normalises. As this would be almost impossible without any by-catch allocation, the UK had raised the matter in the negotiations on this document.

14.4  Our Chairman wrote to the then Minister on 11 September, saying that we hesitated to recommend clearance whilst this matter remained unresolved, and that we would be holding the document under scrutiny, pending further information. We have now received a letter of 13 December from the current Minister (George Eustice) saying that this issue was raised recently at a Council working group, when the UK reiterated its concerns that the absence of any allocation of shark quota to the UK would effectively prevent its vessels from returning to the fishery in the future.  However, he reports that, at present, it seems unlikely that the UK will be given such an allocation, and says that, although the Government supports the aim of limiting the level of shark catches in this region, if the UK were in the event to receive no shark quota under a Protocol in which a by-catch may be inevitable, it would abstain on this amendment.

Conclusion

14.5  Whilst the context of this proposal is somewhat specialised, and it seems unlikely to have any immediate practical impact, it is nevertheless the case that the UK has clearly been treated less favourably than the other three Member States with an interest in this fishery, and, from what the Minister has said, it appears unlikely that the Regulation eventually agreed will rectify this. Since the Regulation will be adopted by qualified majority, there may ultimately be little the Government can do to prevent such an outcome, but we nevertheless think it right to draw this situation to the attention of the House.



 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 2 January 2014