Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

C 163 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.6.


Can the Commission explain why, in the context of the recognised need for controls and transparency in
respect of Community funds, clauses of that nature are invariably included in the agreements signed with
ACP countries (recalling that the Commission is now increasingly toughening those requirements in the
case of specific agreements, as exemplified by the case of Angola, where those same requirements have led
to a delay of almost two months in implementing the new protocol, with obvious adverse effects for the
Community fleet affected), while at the same time it is considered that Greenland can have free rein to
spend this quite considerable amount of Community funding unmonitored?

(2001/C 163 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3447/00

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland and participation of vessel owners in its financing

Despite the fact that in all of the ‘southern’ fisheries agreements the Commission has progressively
increased the financial participation of vessel owners in the costs of agreements, to a level currently
varying between 17 % and 25 % of the total cost, it now appears that once again, in the new fisheries
protocol signed with Greenland, vessel owners benefiting on an exclusive basis from the protocol are asked
to pay nothing at all.

In view of this, can the Commission explain its reasons for consenting once again to a situation of
discrimination of this nature as between vessel owners from the northern and southern Member States?

Is the Commission aware that it is encouraging a climate of opinion in which it can be said quite openly
that the Commission is dividing the Community’s vessel owners into first-class and second-class categories,
thus giving certain fleets the sensation of being abandoned and producing a total credibility breakdown as
regards the Commission’s fisheries policies?

What, in the Commission’s view, is the meaning of the comments in the joint statement of conclusions to
the effect that Greenland is not willing to contemplate any new system in this connection?

It may be presumed that if a third country receives the financial compensation which it considers desirable
it is not for that country to discuss the internal distribution of that compensation to be made by the EU. It
follows that if, in the ‘southern’ agreements, vessel owners are obliged to bear part of the financial burden
it is because the Commission has preferred that option. Can the Commission explain why this should be
so in some cases and not others?

(2001/C 163 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3448/00

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland and monitoring of fisheries activities

The second paragraph of Article 10 of the new fisheries protocol signed with Greenland states that, on the
matter of monitoring, the parties shall cooperate to facilitate the effective implementation of the
monitoring systems, in accordance with the capacity of each party.

Can the Commission state what is meant by this reference to the capacity of each party?

Is a possible interpretation that the EU should take on part of the monitoring responsibility in Greenland’s
EEZ waters? If so, on what basis?

Could this mean that, for example, a Member State which is totally excluded from catch possibilities under
this agreement could be obliged to contribute by sending  and paying for  monitoring vessels?