Brussels, 08/11/2012 (Agence Europe) - Several members of the European Parliament fisheries committee criticised, on Tuesday 6 November, the terms of the proposed new fisheries agreement between the EU and Mauritania. Spain and four other countries also voiced criticism of the new protocol (see EUROPE 10696). The agreement is to be approved by the Council, the Parliament either giving or not giving its consent.
The rapporteur on the agreement, Gabriel Mato Adrover (EPP, Spain), said the agreement was negotiated without taking the professionals into account and behind the European Parliament's back. The sector does not want the agreement, he stressed. This should be enough to envisage giving up the idea of ratifying the agreement. Mato Adrover above all challenged the reduction in fishing quotas for European vessels and the rise in licenses to be paid by EU shipowners. Exclusion of fishing vessels that catch cephalopods (octopus) and the arrangements for fishing shrimps entail economic losses. “The damage could rise to €225 million for the trawling fleet. The exclusion of vessels targeting cephalopods will eliminate 400 direct jobs and at least 2,400 indirect jobs”, Mato Adrover said. The protocol provides for the EU to pay out €70 million in financial compensation three months after the Council adopts the agreement. It is possible not to pay if there are problems concerning fund absorption. The rapporteur said “we have four months in which to denounce the agreement and renegotiate. But why wait for that since the sector does not want these licenses” (our translation throughout). “I do not see why we don't do the revision immediately”, he said, referring to the fact that the Commission acknowledges that some technical conditions could be improved. He went on to conclude: “We want a good agreement, a better agreement than this one”.
“How is it possible for the Commission to seal an agreement with Mauritania and push the Council and EP to adopt it when, quite visibly, it is harmful for the pelagic fleet? I fail to understand any of the arguments put forward”, said Jaroslaw Leszek Walesa (EPP, Poland).
Isabella Lövin (Greens/EFA, Sweden) does not share the view held by most of her colleagues. “I do not believe it is necessary to renegotiate the agreement”, she said. In her view, the protocol negotiated is based on the 2011 resolution of the Parliament on the EU/Mauritania fisheries agreement. It is necessary to respect the environment, not to contribute to overfishing, and to avoid creating competition for local fishermen - provisions to be found in the protocol, she commented. Cephalopod exclusion was included to prevent European fishermen from exacerbating competition for Mauritanian fishermen, she said. She feels it is “a shame” for EU fishermen to complain when the EU is providing €70 million for them. Lövin pointed out that the Mauritanian fisheries sector welcomes the protocol.
Ana Miranda (Greens/EFA, Spain) considers, on the contrary, that exclusion of Galicia's cephalopod fleet from the agreement is “shameful”. The fishermen concerned (400 jobs) cannot turn to other areas for work, she deplored. She reproaches the Commission for not having taken into account scientific data from a Spanish oceanographic institute.
Antolín Sanchez-Presedo (S&D, Spain) would have preferred the protocol to cover more than two years as the sector needs a longer term vision. “If the agreement on cephalopods is not reviewed, I shall oppose the agreement”, he said. “It is one of the worst fisheries protocols put to us”, protested Maria do Ceu Patrao Neves (EPP, Portugal), who also called for the agreement to be renegotiated immediately.
Carmen Fraga Estevez (EPP, Spain) deplored the fact that the Commission had concluded talks when the European fisheries sector did not approve of the conclusion. The conditions foreseen make the agreement “inoperable”, she said, rejecting cephalopod exclusion, the loss of 70% of fishing possibilities for shrimp fishing, and technical measures that prevent pelagic fishermen from working.
The Commission representative sought to defend the EU/Mauritania fisheries agreement. The quantity of pelagic catches is on the rise (300,000 tonnes) and “we are a priority”, measures for protecting sardines are necessary, and so fishing zones must be modified. It is impossible to return to the initial fishing zone, he warned, before going on to say that, for cephalopods, the Commission had not ignored scientific opinions. (LC/transl.jl)