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 base | Article 43(3) TFEU; QMV
|
| Document originated | 4 July 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 10 July 2013
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 24 July 2013 and Minister's letter of 10 December 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | Shortly
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
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.
|
