Brussels, 03/10/2013 (Agence Europe) - Most of the members of the European Parliament fisheries committee acknowledged on Thursday 3 October the improvements brought to proposals on the new fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco (details in EUROPE 10928). Splits reappeared, however, with regard to the Western Sahara.
The fisheries committee will vote on the report on this agreement, drafted by Carmen Fraga Estévez (EPP, Spain), on 28 or 29 November. The Parliament will say whether or not it approves this agreement. The plenary session vote will take place in December. The previous protocol, applied on a provisional basis from 28 February 2011, was not passed by Parliament, which felt that it would cost too much for too little gain, that it failed to ensure the sustainability of the stocks fished, and that it did not comply with international law in that there was no evidence that the local population would enjoy any of the economic or social benefits of the protocol.
Most MEPs acknowledged that, on cost-benefit and sustainability of stocks, the new text brings improvements. Spanish and Portuguese MEPs from the EPP, S&D and ALDE Groups called for the agreement to be passed. MEPs from the Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL felt that the text of the new protocol still failed to comply with international law and that the human rights clause was not ambitious enough.
Fraga Estévez, the rapporteur, said that, broadly speaking, both the European and Moroccan fisheries industries were Ivery happy with this protocol which contains positive improvementsI. She set out in detail: - the number of EU vessels has been reduced from 137 to 126; - fishing opportunities have been increased by 30% (largely in the “industrial pelagic fishing” category); - the cost of the agreement to the Community budget has been reduced by 17%, from €36.1 million to €30 million.
Genuine human rights clause?
Raul Romeva i Rueda (Greens/EFA, Spain) felt that the issue of the geographical scope of the agreement had still not been settled. That vessels from four of the six fishing categories can fish in the waters of the Western Sahara shows that there is an issue of definition that has to be resolved, he argued. On the human rights clause, “there is nothing substantially new” in the text, he added. This view was shared by Isabella Lovin (Greens/EFA, Sweden). She said the text contains a very vague reference to human rights (a suspension clause in the event of dispute between the parties). Human rights are not mentioned, she pointed out, arguing that this runs counter to what was agreed in the new common fisheries policy (CFP).
Excluding Western Sahara waters. Joao Ferreira (GUE/NGL, Portugal) was of the view that the new agreement, just like its predecessor, is in breach of international law. He called on the Commission either to exclude the Western Sahara from the scope of the agreement or to listen to the legitimate representatives of the Sahrawi people.
The United States still excludes the waters of the Western Sahara from its fishing agreement, pointed out Nils Torvalds (ALDE, Finland), indicating that he thought the US is in the right.
Fisheries agreement cannot resolve issue. Maria do Céu Patrao-Neves (EPP, Portugal) said that this was the “most rigorous and most ambitious agreement” ever debated. She gave full support to it. She noted a 25% increase in the costs borne by EU shipowners and, despite this, fishermen are desperately keen to return to Moroccan waters.
“This is a good agreement that must be supported”, stated Dolores Garcia-Hierro (ALDE, Spain). Luis Capoulas Santos (S&D, Portugal) noted the improvements in terms both of the fishing opportunities/financial compensation balance and the sustainability of the fishery. He, like others, including the rapporteur, was of the opinion that the EU should not try to settle the Western Sahara issue through this fisheries agreement. The agreement contains provisions which state that the EU must monitor the geographical distribution of the benefits of the agreement. “If the evaluation is negative, the Commission can suspend the agreement. This is a qualitative leap”, he said. 99% of Morocco's fish resources are exploited by Moroccans and foreign fleets, mainly Russian and Chinese, he stated, with the EU taking the remaining 1%.
John Stuart Agnew (EFD, UK) highlighted the increase in fishing opportunities, especially for industrial fishing, which is not a good thing in his opinion. He questioned whether this would be good use of the British taxpayers' money. Ulrike Rodust (S&D, Germany) said there was still a long way to go with this agreement. She acknowledged that changes had been made for the better but argued that a number of points still had to be discussed. Provisions on geographical distribution are still not good enough, in her view. Romeva i Rueda told the meeting that rigorous assessment of the state of the fish stocks was needed before the agreement is pout to the vote. (LC/transl.fl)