Brussels, 11/10/2011 (Agence Europe) - There was deep division among the members of the European Parliament (EP) fisheries committee on Monday 11 October when it discussed the one-year extension, to the end of February 2012, of the current protocol to the fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco. French and Spanish MEPs tend to be in favour of extension, the others not. The Committee is united in the view that the new agreement, which the European Commission is preparing to negotiate with the Moroccan authorities, must contain improvements to allow greater benefit from the fishing opportunities offered to EU vessels. Committee chairwoman Carmen Fraga Estévez (EPP, Spain) suggested that, at the same time as it votes on extension of the agreement, the EP should vote on a resolution containing recommendations on the parameters that should be observed in negotiations on a new EU-Morocco fisheries agreement.
EP rapporteur Carl Haglund (ALDE, Finland) stated that he would suggest the EP reject extension of the agreement. He called on his colleagues not to politicise the debate and to focus on the economic and environmental angles of this agreement, the results of which he described as “disappointing”. “This agreement is not satisfactory”, he said, arguing that its extension should not be approved. Chris Davies (ALDE, UK) said: “This agreement brings nothing, either for us or for the Moroccans”. The inefficiency of this fisheries agreement with Morocco “makes it stand it out from all the others. It has to be ended”, he added. Isabella Lövin (Greens/EFA, Sweden) criticised the overfishing of stocks within this agreement and opined that the development facet of the arrangements was minimal, “if not inexistent”. “I agree with the rapporteur that, given the circumstances, the EP must not give its assent to this agreement”, she argued. Raül Romeva i Rueda (Greens/EFA, Spain) cited several reasons, economic, environmental and legal, why extension should be rejected.
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL, Portugal) argued that the Western Sahara should not be included within the agreement. “If we approve extension of the agreement, we give our blessing to the occupation by Morocco of the Western Sahara”, he stated.
“I do not in any way share” the rapporteur's conclusions, said Alain Cadec (EPP, France). Several reasons led him to the view that “we have to approve this agreement”: - discussion has to be on a fisheries agreement, not on international geo-political considerations “which do not seem to be within our remit”; - the Moroccan authorities had assured him that the aid is properly shared out along the whole coast; - the agreement is important because it allows vessels from 10 EU countries to fish in Moroccan waters; - the agreement was approved by the Commission until the end of February 2012, so that, “if we criticise it, it will be difficult to negotiate a new agreement with Morocco”. Cadec underlined the need for future negotiations to ensure that the EU does not “lose out” to the same extent. Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D, Spain) warned of the negative consequences of not extending the agreement and highlighted improvements that should be brought in the new agreement. Ulrike Rodust (S&D, Germany) does not support extension: “I want the next agreement to be better and to force the Commission and Morocco to make a better job”, she said. Ian Hudghton (Greens/EFA, UK) is also against any extension. “It's going to take a massive paradigm shift in future”, admitted committee chairwoman Fraga Estévez, speaking of a possible new EU-Morocco agreement. The Commission representative suggest the EP should vote to extend the agreement and pointed out that further information had been requested of Morocco (see EUROPE 10468). He said, in short, that EU vessels were not the only ones responsible for the overfishing of stocks - there are several other non-EU countries fishing in those waters - and that, if the EU wanted to have a positive influence on Morocco's fishing policy, the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement could help. The committee vote will be held on 22 and 23 November, and the matter will be put to the plenary session in December, or perhaps in January. (LC/transl.rt)