Cifarelli, M.

Name not available

European Communities4rll. L(q?)t(,1ts rs,(1EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.Working Documentsr97B - 1979l3 December 1978 DOCUMENT 495178Reportdrawn up on behalf of the Committee on Agricultureon the delay in the conclusion of a fishing agreement between Spain and theEuropean CommunityRapporteur: Mr M. CIFARELLIl.L,{Enslistr EditionPE 56.1521fin.on 11 septernlcer 1978 Mr Bangemann, on beharf of the Liberal andDemocratic GrouP, and l'!r Vandewiele, on behalf of the christian-DemocraticGrouP (Group of the EPP), tabled a motion for a resolution, with regueEt forurgent debate Pursuant to Rule L4 of the Ru1es of Procedure, on the delayin the conclusion of a fishing agreement between Spain and the EuropeanCommunity.During the sitting of 15 Septehber 1978 the European parliament referredthis motion to ttre Committee on Agriculture.On 28 Septenber the comnittee on Agriculture appginted !4r Cifarellirapporteur.At itg neeting of 30 November/l Decembet L978 the committee consideredthe draft rePort and adopted the motion for a resolution contained in it by8 votes in favour with 3 abstentions.Present: Mr caillavet, chairman and deputy rapporteur; Irlr Hughes,vice-chairmani tlr Andersen, Mr cunningham, Mr Fr'rih, !{r Hansen, Iur Joxe,litr Klinker, Mr Ney, I"1r Pisoni and I'lr Tolman-3- PE 56.Ls2/fin.CONIENTSA. MOTION FOR A RESOLUTIONB. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ..Ttre new interim regimeThe framework agreement 'Extract from the statement by I'!r cheyssonANNEX: Motion for a resolution (Doc' 299/78/rev'\779II13-4- PE 56.L12/ftn.AThe Corudttee on Agriculture hereby submits to the European Parliamentthe foLlotr,ing motion for a resolution, together with explanatory ltatemsnt!I.{OIION FOR A RESOLUTIONon the delay in the conclusion of, a fishing agrcem€nt betnoen Spain andthe European Community@,- having regard to the Council Reeolution adopted on 3 November 1976 at1rhe Hague and the extension to 2OO miles of the maritime wat,era comingunder the sovereignty or within the jurisdiction of llember States,- having regard to its debate of 15 Septernber I978I on the fishing agreementbetween Spain and the Eurolran Community,having regard to the referral to the Committee on Agriculture of themotion for a resolution (Doc.299/78/rev.) on the delay in the conclusionof a fighing agreement betvreen Spain and the European Community,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture (Doc. 495/781 'Welcomes the fact that a new Lnterim fighing agrcsment haa final.ly beenconcluded between Spain and the European cotununitytDeeply regrets, however, that the Council has not ratified the framervrorkagreement with Strnin; calle on the Council to ratify without furtherdelay this agreement and the other framervork agreements concluded withother third countries which are still outstanding; considers itcontrary to the Community.s interest and prejudicial to its credibilityto establish a link between the definition of the external and internalfisheries regimes;Feels that once the framework agreement has been rat.ified by the Council,it and the new interim regime could form the basis for discussions onfishing products during the negotiations on Spain's accesgion to theEuropean Community;Urges that Greece and Portugal should not be treated less favourablythan Spain in the fisheries aector, once the framework agreement withSpain has been ratified by the Council;I ,"b.a." of the European Parliament, September 1978, No. 2331.2.a4.-5- PE 56.Lsz/fLn.5. Emphasizes that th€ir acceasion to the European Comnunity will causeproblerns for Greece, Portugal and spain in t'heir relations with thirdcountries in the fisheries s€ctor and will thus aignificantly alter theexisting balance of relations betseen the nine l'tenber States of theEuropean Comnunity with rcgard to the eharing of fiahing reaourc€a tRequest8, therefore, the commission and council to keeP it informed ofaII the agreenrente governing the three applicant countricet relationswith third countries and rrith the European Community;Asks both the comrnieeion and the councll to keeP it regularly informedon progrees in the negotiatione between the three applicant etates andthe European Community on fisherieg and on the developm€nt of theirrelations with third countriea at 6ach stage of the accession nagotiatione;Instructe its President to forrrrard thic reaolution to the Commigsion andCouncil.5.7.B.-6- PE 56 .L52/Cin.BEXPIANATORY STATEMEMTl" At its sitting of 15 September 1978 the European Parliament discussedthe motion for a resolution on the delay in the conclusion of a fishingagreement betlreen Spain and the European communityl.Mr prescott requested on behalf of the Socialist Group that the motionfor a resolution should be referred to the Committee on Agriculture;Mr Vandewiele suptrrcrted this reguest. Pursuant to RuIe 26(2) of the Rules ofprocedure, the motion for a resolution was referred to the Committee on,Agriculture".2. In this resolution the authors expressed the fear that the Communitynight lose its credibility with Spanish public opinion, since the interimregime, due to expire on 30 September 1978 provided for the granting of onlyI2l fishing li.cences to Spanish fishermen. This resttictive regime msantthat. a number of Spanish fishermen lirere cont,irru.i ng to fish in liltlC waterBwj,thout a licence. This had led to several incidents invol-ving Spanishfishermen who were stopped because they had contravened the interim regimeconcluded between Spain, the EEC and the responsible authorities of theMember States. On 2l August L978 the Spanish Government then decideduni1aterally, without any intervention whatever by the Community, to recallall vessels without a licence (see Annex) . This unilateral decision sparkedoff very strong reactions among public opinion in Spain and in particularamong fishing circles, and responsibility for this situation was attributedto the European CommunitY.It shoutd be emphasized that the situation has since changed3. Negotiatlonrresumcd on 5 September 1978 and, as indicated bclow, were finally'brought toa satisfactory conclueion.ghe "e!y il1terim reqime3. The new interim regime for Spain, which was adopted by the Council on25 September 1978, marks a major step forward as compared with the previousregime, which expired on 30 September-1 Do". 299/78/xev.2 S." minutes of, sitting of 15 SePtember 1978 - OJ No. C 239, 9.LO.L978, P.543 s". PE 55.5o2 (working document on EEC,/spanish fishing relations drawn upby the Subcommittee on Fisherles)-7 - PE 56 .L52/tin.Ifhe Commission strongly denies allegations of rartificial guotas, beingfixed to satisfy Spanish demands and maintains that the increase in the quotastakes account of the higher estimates of hake stocks contained in the ICESrePort. However, there is no doubt that political rather than technicalconsiderations were instrumental in improving the interim regime, which wasadopted in the light of Spainls possible accessj_on to the EEC.4. The spanish hake quota in EEC waters for the periocl I october to31 December has been fixed at 4,5OO tonnes compared with 2,650 tonnes forthe previous three months. The by-catch of mainly demersal fish such as cod,haddock and saithe is estimated at 9,oOo tonnes. The geographical allocationis as follovrs (in tonnes):ICES zone VfICES zone VIfICES zone VIIIHake5271,8oo2,L73By-catch1,o543,6004,345The nuntber of licences has been increased from I21 Lo 24O and will bedistributed as follovrs :ICES zone VIICES zone VIIICES zone VIII5. The new interim regime stipulates that Spanish vessels allovred to fishin EEc $/aters must have a maximum power of 7oo BHp (brake horse power).However, a greater number of permits may be given to smaller vessels under asystem of coeffficients. This means that the total number of permits mightwell exceed 3OO.6. Although the Spanish expressed satisfaction at the new agreements theystressed that it was not the optimum solution. fhey pointed out that thereused to be 392 spanish vessers fishing in EEC waters and that a majorrestructuring of the fleet will still be necessary. They also stated that thenew hake guota was s'tiIl well below the 5,oOO tonnes allocated for the sameperiod last year.4L10693-B- PE 56 .L52/tin.The framerarork agreement7. At its meeting of 25 September 1978 the Council authorized the Commissionto initial the frameqrork agreement it had negotiated with Spain on thecommunityrs behalf. However, the council it,setf has not yet ratified thisagreement because one l{ember State refuses to accePt it until prOgresA haabeen made with the definition of the internal fisheries regime. (The frame-work agreement with Norrrray is also blocked.) when the agreement is finallyratified by the council, it will govern relations between the two parties forfive years.8. The framework agreement with Spain i-s very similar to those alreadyconcluded with the scandinavian countries. It provides a legal basis forestablishing a balance in relations between the two lErties in the fisheriessector. should a reduction in fishing activity be necessary in order toachieve this balance (as in the case of sPain) , this would be carried outso ae to achieve minimum disruption of the fishing industry. The agrGementalso provides for annual coneultations to fix catch quotas, to grant permitsand to establish the permitted fishing zones. It also lays dot'rn rules forcooperation with a vievr to preserving fish stocks 'g. For the EEC, the framework agreement covers the 2oo-mile zone underconmunity sovereignty, without excluding the possibility of extending thissovereignty to other fishing zones such as the Mediterranean.For Spain, the agreement covers its 2OO mile zone. Ho^tever, the Spanishhave attached to the agreement a statement to the effect r,hat, although theframework agreement replaces its bilateral agreements with the I'lember States,and in particular with Frarr"el, the latter could be reitrvoked if the formerlapses. The spanish have in mind their historic rights in French and otherwaters.10. Spain.s accession to the European Community will increase to some extentthe latter's share in world fishing catches 'The world catctr tot L976 amounted to 73.5 million tonnes, of which theCommunity's share was 5.1 million tonnes of 6'9/"'1 Fig..ri.r Bay, Bidassoa. For this agreement see Doc. 466/77, P'16rapPorteur: l'1r Klinker-9- PE 56 .Lsz/fLn.spain takes 1.5 million tonnes, ot 29.4% of the conmunity's catch' If itwas already a Member state, it would take second place in the communityimmediately after Denmark which has a catch of 1.9 million tonnes' The otherapplicant states have much lower catches: Portugal with 339,OOO tonnesand Greece, with 7I,OOO tonnes, together rePresent only {3% of the Communityrstotal catch.These figures clearly reveal the importance of the agreement concludedbetween SPain and the EEC.11. However, Greece and Portugal, whose catches are much lOvrer than SPain's'should not receive less farourable treatment on account of their relativelyweak position. ftre European Parliament therefore requests the Council tokeep it regularly informed on the state of negotiations on fisheries withthese two aPPlicant countries 'L2. The accession of spain, Greece and Portugal to the communit'ywillundoubtedly upset the balance established between the parties concerned'For example, vessels from these countries which used to fish in Soviet waterEare likely to be forbidden to do so after accession, if relations betweentheEuropeanConmunityandtheUssRarestillwhattheyaretoday.Compensation will have to be made for these fishermen in Community waters 'which will raise new problems between the Member states.13. Under these circumstances, it is regrettable that, due to its inabilityto define an internal fisheries regime, the council is blocking the framer"rorkagreement concluded wiLh third countries (spain, Nor$ay, etc.) . It iEimportant that the Council should ratify outstanding framerrrrork agreementswithout delay in order to preserve the Community's credibility' In particularan early solution must be found in respect of relations with spain, which isan applicant country, so as not to damage the community's image in the eyesof spanish public opinion and satisfactory arrangements must be made' in viewof the economic importance of fj-shing for both parties '- Io - PE 56.L52/fin'EXTRACT FROM THE STATEMENTon recent develoPmentE inBY I{R CHEYSSONrelations between the EEC and Spaincoming back to the motion for a resolution, I'lr President, I should firstlike briefly to describe the legal situation since the eetablishment of a fishingzone of up to 2OO miles in the conununity. From that time on it was decidedthat only those fishermen from third countries which had traditionally fishedinside the zone, and those who were covered by a formal fishing agreementwith the conmunity, would be authorized to continue fishing.Thls framework agreement having been concluded, the detailed conditionsare then fixed by the community after consultation with the Third countryconcerned. It waE within this framework that on 3 November L976 the Councilauthorized the commissi,on to initiate negotiations with a view to concludinga fishing agreement with spain. llhese began on 16 Novedber L976, thirteendays later; they continued throughout" Lg77 and into L978, without gettinganlmhere. on two occasions, spain itself adjourned the fishing negotiationsand it is not indiscreet to say that the main difficulty centred on thevalidity of the tondon Agreement of 1954 and the Franco-spanish Agreement ofLg6T,whichreferredinparticulartofishingrighEsbetweensixandtwelven:iles off our coasts.while these neEotiations have been going oD, since 1 February 1978 thesystem applicable to SPanish fishermen haE since been based on an autonomousdecision by the Comnunity set out in Regulation No - 204/78, which calculatedthe numher of permits on the baEis of the size of catch which spanish fisher-men are to be authorized to obtain in Conmunity waters within the framework ofthe conservation policies whictr we have adopted. l1rhe nurnber of permits wastherefore fixed at 121 , L.e. a number of boats markedly lower than the numberof units fJ-shing in the same areas beforehand'Since this system was introduced - for the 121 permits-the Member Statesconcerned have noted violations by Slnnish fishermen fishing withouL permitson frequent occasions -The authoritiee of the Member States concerned were thus induced to stopcertain vessels and impose sometimes heavy fines. The Spanish Government thendecided unilaterally, on its onn authority, without any intervention whateverby the community or the commission, to recall every single vessel deprived ofits permit. 1[his was a rather surprising decision - and legally debatable,as Spanish shipowners Pointed out to their olen government - and as you know'it has since been suspended. It waE this unilateral decision by spain whichsparked off the very strong reactions in public opinion, eepecially in theareas concerned, which are rightly reflected in the motion for a resolution'-11_- PE 56.L52 /Cin.And I must acknowledge that the spanish authorities themselves have stressed thatthepresshaddistortedmattersbylayingtheblameonthismeasuretakenunilaterally by the sPanish Government, and in which we had in no way beeninvolved.Thecommissionhassteadfastlyemphasized-anddoessonovrbeforeParliamentwith all the authority which a statement to Parliament rePresents i that it isready to negotiate a framework agreement with spain at any time' and that itdesires to resume negotiations with spain as soon as possible' 1!the Ambassador'the head of the spanish mission to the community, was again notified of the facton 6 September by my colleague l,lr Gundelach. vfle want to obtain a frameworkagreement as soon as Possible; consultations will foltovr on the detaileddefinition of fishing rights under the normal procedure. It is possible - andquite probable - that arrangements under the agreement will be more generousthan the autonomous system that exists at the moment'we must not forget, however, that all this comes within the generaL frame-work of the conservation policy, and this is obviously tle link between thepresent debate and the more general aspects of our fisheries policy' Hencei,.,. conservation policy, which j-nvolves some sacrifice in order to safeguardr-he fuLure of the fishing industry, must apPly everltrrhere' and must applywlthin the frame\ivork of all our agreements with the fishermen of third countries 'We must also, in the case of Spain, work tovrards a genuine reciprocity infi-shing rights, which is not the situation at Present. Ttre negotiations aredifficult; we hope to push them through; but until they are completed' we' :..11 have to continue with the autonomous system'-L2- PE 56 .L52/ fin.AN-ryEXMOTION FOR A RESOLUTION (Doc. 299/78/tev.ltabled by !{r BANGEIANN,on behalf of the Liberal and Democratic Groupand l,1r VANDEWIELE,on behalf of the Christian-Denocratic Group (Group of the EPP)with reguest for urgent debatepursuant to RuIe 14 of the Rules of Procedureon the delay in the conclusion of a fishing agreement betweenSpain and the European ComrnunitY@,- having regard to the violent reactions in Spain againat the EuropeanCommunity in connection with 121 provisional EEC catch permitsi- having regard to the fear that the catctt restrictions in EEc waters willjeopardize tens of thousands of jobs in Spain and the survival of partof the traditional Spanish fishing fleet,1. Expresses great concern at the situation created by tlle latest eventa t2. CaIIs on the Council to open up negotiations with spain or to steP upcurrent negotiations with that country forthwith;3. Hopes that the Council will bring about an immediate and lastingi-mprovement in the Communityts reputation, go damaged by recentdifferences, in this major applicant country;4. Instructs its president to forrrrard this resolution to the Council- andCommission.-13- PE s6 .LSZ/Ann./f.in.

Report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture
on the delay in the conclusion of a fishing agreement between Spain and the European Community. EP Working Documents, document 495/78, 13 December 1978

Archive of European Integration

http://aei.pitt.edu/95311/1/1978%2D79.78.495.pdf

Report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture on the delay in the conclusion of a fishing agreement between Spain and the European Community. EP Working Documents, document 495/78, 13 December 1978

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Archive of European Integration