REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the protocol defining for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008 the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Guinea on fishing off the Guinean coast
(COM(2003) 765 – C5‑0024/2004 – 2003/0290(CNS))

By letter of 13 January 2004 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Article37 and Article 300(3), first subparagraph of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the protocol defining for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008 the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Guinea on fishing off the Guinean coast (COM(2003) 765 – 2003/0290(CNS)).

At the sitting of 15 January 2004 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the proposal to the Committee on Fisheries as the committee responsible and the Committee on Budgets and to the Committee on Development and Cooperation for their opinions (C5‑0024/2004).

The Committee on Fisheries appointed Patricia McKenna rapporteur at its meeting of 20 January 2004.

The committee considered the proposal for a Council decision and draft report at its meetings of 19 January, 17 February and 16 March 2004.

At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Struan Stevenson (chairman), Rosa Miguélez Ramos (vice-chairwoman ), Patricia McKenna (rapporteur), Elspeth Attwooll, Niels Busk, Nigel Paul Farage, Giovanni Claudio Fava (for Carlos Lage), Ilda Figueiredo (for Salvador Jové Peres), Ian Stewart Hudghton, Heinz Kindermann, Giorgio Lisi, Albert Jan Maat (for Brigitte Langenhagen), Nello Musumeci, Seán Ó Neachtain, Neil Parish (for Hugues Martin), Manuel Pérez Álvarez, Joaquim Piscarreta, Catherine Stihler, Dominique F.C. Souchet and Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna.

The opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Development and Cooperation are attached.

The report was tabled on 17 March 2004.

on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the protocol defining for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008 the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Guinea on fishing off the Guinean coast

(COM(2003) 765 – C5‑0024/2004 – 2003/0290(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

-   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2003) 765)[1],

-   having regard to Article 37 and Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C5‑0024/2004),

-   having regard to Rules 67 and 97(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

-   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Development and Cooperation (A5‑0164/2004),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal as amended and approves conclusion of the Protocol;

2.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and Guinea.

• [1] Not yet published in OJ.

The new fisheries protocol with Guinea is among the first to be negotiated since the Commission published its communication on "partnership agreements" in December 2002. This report attempts to conduct a thorough analysis of the protocol, to see to what extent the objectives outlined in that document have been pursued.

Consultation Procedure

The protocol was initialled on 27 June 2003 but was only available to the Fisheries Committee for naming a rapporteur in January 2004 - more than six months later. The Commission must have known that the elections in June 2004 meant that the timetable for legislative reports would be very tight, yet no special effort was made on their part to move quickly. They simply asked for urgent procedure and seem to have assumed that the Parliament would comply.

It is a regular occurrence that the Commission is tardy in its consultation and presents the Parliament with virtually a fait accompli.

But Parliament is the only directly-elected institution in the EU, and the budgetary authority, giving it a two-fold responsibility:

• ∙to provide democratic oversight of the Commission's activities, to ensure that they are coherent with the various EU policies, and
• ∙to verify that European tax-payers' money is properly spent.

It is important to evaluate as fully as possible the consequences of this protocol, even within strict time constraints, for the reputation of the Parliament rests upon the quality and depth of its reports. While the Parliament will complete its procedures in time, it is regrettable that cooperation on the part of the Commission was sporadic. Information provided was often partial or with errors and some information they were unable to provide. In short, the Commission did not fully cooperate in Parliament's examination of the protocol and so this analysis cannot be thorough.

Previous Protocol

The Commission's own analysis states quite candidly:

-   the measures introduced by Guinea for the management of fish stocks have not succeeded in preventing overfishing in the coastal zone;

-   the preceding Protocols have not succeeded in improving local market supplies and food security for the population. At the same time, discards are a waste of resources;

-   fisheries protection and control measures in Guinea are inefficient and the previous Protocols have not succeeded in reducing illegal fishing;

-   previous Protocols have also done little to generate local added value;

-   Guinean involvement in the fisheries sector has remained largely non-industrial;

-   regional cooperation with other West African countries has been limited;

-   the lack of information on fishing in Guinea makes it difficult to carry out an accurate assessment of the activities and results of the fisheries sector.

Current Protocol

The new protocol contains several improvements which are to be commended:

1.   EU-flagged vessels can only fish in Guinean waters under terms of the bilateral agreement. This means that fishing by EU-flagged vessels under private agreements with the Guinean government is no longer authorized.

2.   The period of licence validity has been standardized, making the administration of the licences easier and clearer.

3.   The coastal zone reserved for artisanal vessels has been extended from the current 10 miles out to either 12 miles or the 20-metre isobath, whichever is greater. Enforcement will, however, be problematic (see below).

These are positive changes, as far as they go. Otherwise, the basic approach of the protocol towards the problems identified by the Commission is to spend more money, rather than addressing the underlying causes. Four areas in particular stand out.

1.   Illegal Fishing

The control of fishing activities in the Guinean EEZ is still very poor, leading to much illegal fishing. Data are difficult to obtain, but several indications point to significant illegal fishing:

• ∙Guinean observer data for 2001 show that 34 of 92 vessels observed were fishing in prohibited zones and 85 of 92 vessels were using illegal meshes;
• ∙a trip by Greenpeace in the Guinean EEZ in September 2001 found 16 vessels, of which nine were illegal, some of them fishing within ten miles of the coast;
• ∙data furnished by Commission show 14 arrests and 38 infractions in 2001 and 22 arrests and 42 infractions in 2002 with an increase predicted for 2003;
• ∙two maritime patrols in 2002 identified 15 vessels fishing illegally;

These data relate to all flags, Guinean as well as foreign vessels.

During the period from 1996 through 2003, Guinea has been given a total of €2.750.000 to support control and surveillance activities. This money has not been effective in decreasing the incidence of illegal fishing.

The wisdom of simply continuing to provide €400.000 per year is highly questionable. A further €800.000 is to finance the purchase of two surveillance vessels. While additional vessels may be needed, they must be part of an overall control and surveillance structure, including strengthening regional surveillance activities, an effective judicial system, etc. One must ask what the EU has done along these lines?

It is not currently possible for the Commission to verify the use of targeted measures - Guinea can spend the money as they wish and the Commission cannot prevent it. Rather than continuing to designate money for targeted measures, a preferable approach would be to institute specific cooperation projects, in which the Commission has the legal power to ensure that the monies spent are properly spent and accounted for.

2.   Poorly Known Impact of EU Fleets

It is not possible to evaluate the impact of Community fleets in Guinean waters, for the Commission did not provide the necessary data. They were asked for detailed catch data for EU fleets for 1998-2003 but only provided partial data for 2001 and 2002.

Catch data are the most basic and fundamental of all information in fisheries - without knowing how much of what species is caught, no fishery can be properly evaluated or managed. The Control Regulation requires Member States to provide the Commission with the appropriate catch data and the protocols to fisheries agreements have similar provisions. Yet the Commission has only very poor data on catches by Community vessels.

For the years 2001 and 2002, Commission data show that certain Member States failed to submit any data at all. Others submitted only totals with no indication of what species were involved. Even when data did include information on species, there was very little detail. For one fleet of shrimp trawlers, for instance, only 14% of the catch was identified to species and over one third of the total was simply labelled "other species".

With such a poor understanding of the activities of EU fleets, it is not possible to be confident that they are not catching depleted stocks and contributing to their further decline.

The Commission says that getting proper catch data is a priority, but the fact remains that they negotiated a five year protocol without full knowledge of what the EU fleets were catching, and thus without knowing what impact the protocols have had on Guinean fish stocks.

3.   Status of the Stocks

The poor knowledge of the stocks in Guinean waters led twice to the extension of the previous protocol while a trawl survey was conducted of the Guinean EEZ. Among its findings in coastal waters were:

• ∙catch rates for many species had decreased since earlier surveys in 1985 and 1998;
• ∙for most species, small individuals were caught, before the age of reproduction.

It concluded that many stocks were severely over-exploited in the coastal zone, the principle fishing grounds of the artisanal fleets. It raised concerns about a possible regime shift towards species of no commercial value if over-fishing were not curtailed.

In deeper waters, some catch rates were also low, although there were fewer data from earlier years for comparison. Some stocks appeared more abundant than in coastal waters and the report suggested that some effort by the artisanal fleet be transferred to deeper waters, to alleviate pressure in the coastal zone.

The September 2003 report of the Working Group on Demersal Stocks of CECAF provided analyses of many stocks in Guinean waters. Most were classified as either "over-exploited" (catfish, grunts, sole, pink shrimp, cuttlefish, bream) or "fully exploited" and "in danger of over-exploitation" (croakers, petit capitaine). Reductions in fishing effort were recommended.

Given the very poor quality of catch data furnished by the Commission, it is not possible to establish how many of these species are caught by the EU fleets, although significant catches of shrimps, cuttlefish, bream and flatfish appear in the data.

Article 1 of the protocol foresees a 20% increase in fishing by finfish and cephalopod fleets in 2005 and 2006, pending scientific evidence of "the sound state of the stocks" and an equivalent reduction in effort by other fleets. The poor data available on catches and the over-exploited nature of several stocks suggest that no increase would be justified according to currently available information.

4.   Selectivity by EU Fleets

A new provision provides for a Guinean vessel to collect fish in excess of EU bycatch limits for landing in Guinea, supposedly to add to food security. But fuller utilization of bycatch is not the answer to a lack of selectivity. Agreements should aim to implement selective fishing practices to avoid incidental catches, rather than making use of them. The objective should be to encourage the Guinean fishermen to catch their own fish, not to give them the rejects that the EU does not want.

Conclusions

This analysis has been hampered by poor reporting by the Member States and a less-than-full cooperation on the part of the Commission. While certain improvements have been made over the previous protocol, the Commission was unable to provide sufficient assurances that this agreement will not threaten the sustainability of fishery resources in Guinean waters and consequently the livelihoods and food security of the local population.

If this agreement typifies what the Commission means by "partnership agreements" then that term signifies little more than cosmetic touches to disguise the same approach as in previous protocols.

Your rapporteur has proposed a few amendments in an attempt to improve matters, but as no amendments are possible to the text of the protocol itself, they constitute nothing more than advice to the Commission, and the Commission has frequently made clear what it thinks of the advice of the Parliament.

It is thus up to Parliament to decide whether or not this agreement will contribute to the sustainability of fishing in Guinea and improving the image of the European fleets in West Africa, even if the amendments are adopted.

19 February 2004

for the Committee on Fisheries

on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol defining for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008 the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Guinea on fishing off the Guinean coast

(COM(2003) 765 – C5‑0024/2004 – 2003/0290(CNS))

Draftswoman: Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop

PROCEDURE

The Committee on Budgets appointed Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop draftswoman at its meeting of 21 January 2004.

It considered the draft opinion at its meeting of 18 February 2004.

At this meeting it adopted the following amendments unanimously with 1 abstention.

The following were present for the vote: Terence Wynn (chairman and draftsman for Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop), Reimer Böge (vice-chairman), Anne Elisabet Jensen (vice-chairwoman), Ioannis Averoff, Joan Colom i Naval, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Catherine Guy-Quint, María Esther Herranz García, Jan Mulder, Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar and Ralf Walter.

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

BACKGROUND/GENERAL COMMENTS

1.   The proposed Council Regulation concerns the conclusion of a Protocol defining for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008 the fishing opportunities and the financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Guinea.

2.   The former Protocol to the Fisheries agreement between the EC and Guinea expired on 31 December 2001, but was extended to 31 December 2003, pending negotiations on its renewal. These negotiations ended in the initialling of a new Protocol in June 2003.

3.   The new Protocol, which covers the period from January 2004 to 31 December 2008, grants the fishing opportunities as given in Table 1 below. Additional fishing possibilities for fin-fish and cephalopods from 2005 can be granted, providing that the following conditions are fulfilled: sound state of the stock, equivalent reduction of licences issued outside the scope of agreements, and satisfactory rate of use of fishing opportunities.

Table 1- Protocol EC-Guinea 2004-2008 - Fishing opportunities

• *Quantities expressed in Gross Registered Tons (GRT) are per month, averaged over the year.

4.   The new Protocol introduces several changes in the traditional elements of fisheries agreements. These changes derive notably from the ex-post evaluation conducted on the 2000-2003 Agreement and are meant to address such issues as overfishing, food security for the local population, illegal fishing, generation of local added value, joint exploitation of fishery resources and regional co-operation with other West African countries. They mainly concern:

• -the duration of the Protocol (5 years), meant to allow targeted measures sufficient time to produce results;
• -the additional fishing opportunities for fin-fish and cephalopods subject to certain conditions (cf. 3 above);
• -the increase of the financial compensation, from € 740/GRT under the former Protocol to € 850/GRT in the present one (i.e. an increase of 15%), above the level provided for under the Protocol with Guinea-Bissau, but below that of Protocols with Mauritania, Angola and Senegal;
• -the allocation for purchasing surveillance vessels, which replaces the premium provided for under the former Protocol and meant to reduce the overall fishing effort;
• -the increase of licence fees for trawlers and of advances for tuna vessels and longliners, in line with the Protocol with Guinea-Bissau;
• -a more efficient management of licences in order to tighten controls over the fishing effort;
• -the promotion of setting-up of joint ventures between Community and Guinean operators.

Financial/Budgetary aspects

5.   The overall financial contribution comprises a financial compensation, amounts earmarked for financing sustainable management measures, and allocations for the purchase by Guinea of surveillance vessels. The financial compensation may increase in line with the fishing opportunities in Table 1. If these fishing opportunities are not granted, the financial compensation shall be adjusted proportionally.

6.   In addition to these amounts, the Community shall allocate € 500 000 in 2004 and € 300 000 in 2005 for the purchase by Guinea of surveillance vessels.

Table 2 over the next page gives the schedule and the breakdown of the overall financial contribution. The financial compensation represents the maximum amount to be paid providing all fishing opportunities are granted.

Table 2 - Schedule of commitment/payment appropriations - €

• *Maximum amount, providing all fishing opportunities under Table 1 are granted

7.   With regard to administrative expenditure, the Commission estimates the total costs at € 275.955 for the duration of the action (5 years). Table 3 below gives the breakdown of these costs.

Table 3 - Breakdown of administrative expenditure - €

8.   The cost-benefits analysis conducted under the former Protocol indicates that the yearly benefits amount to € 15 m (value of fish caught: € 7.5m; value of European jobs directly or indirectly maintained: € 7.5m) for a yearly cost estimated at € 4.4 m - a ratio of 3,4:1.

CONCLUSIONS

1.   The Committee on Budgets welcomes the new Protocol with the Republic of Guinea, which provides for potentially additional fishing opportunities for the EC fleet, and improved management capacities for Guinean fisheries, given that some 46% of the overall financial contribution foreseen under the Protocol are allocated to targeted measures.

2.   The Committee on Budgets notes with satisfaction that, in line with the IIA of 6 May 1999[1], in particular the Declaration by the European Parliament on Annex VI to this Agreement, the Protocol, under its Art. 2 and 3 lays down a deadline for the payment of the financial contribution (1st September 2004) which leaves sufficient time for Parliament to deliver its opinion.

3.   However, the Committee regrets that the Commission proposal was transmitted to Parliament only in December 2003, although negotiations with Guinea had successfully ended in June 2003.

4.   The Committee on Budgets considers that, on the basis of the costs-benefits analysis conducted under the former Protocol, this new Protocol is good value for money, even taking account of the 15% increase in the financial compensation.

5.   In this regard, and in order to allow for the best possible use of Community funds under this Protocol, the Committee on Budgets takes the view that the Commission should take into consideration licence applications from Member States which are not allocated fishing opportunities under the proposed Council Regulation, in case licence applications do not cover all the fishing opportunities laid down by the Protocol.

6.   The Committee welcomes also the fact that an ex-post evaluation will be conducted during the last year of the duration of the Protocol and stresses that in any event, a general assessment report should be transmitted to Parliament before any negotiations on the possible renewal of the Protocol.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Fisheries, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

• [1] OJ C 172, 18.6.1999 p.1
• [2] Not yet published in OJ.

21 January 2004

for the Committee on Fisheries

on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol defining for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008 the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Guinea on fishing off the Guinean coast

(COM(2003) 765 – C5‑0024/2004 – 2003/0290(CNS))

Draftsman: Margrietus J. van den Berg

PROCEDURE

The Committee on Development and Cooperation appointed Margrietus J. van den Berg draftsman at its meeting of 12 January 2004.

It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 13 and 20 January 2004.

At the last meeting it adopted the following amendments unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Margrietus J. van den Berg (acting chaiman and draftsman), Marieke Sanders-ten Holte (vice-chairwoman), Anders Wijkman (vice-chairman), Jean-Pierre Bebear, John Bowis, John Alexander Corrie, Nirj Deva, Colette Flesch, Michael Gahler (for Karsten Knolle), Karin Junker, Bashir Khanbhai (for Luigi Cesaro), Glenys Kinnock, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Linda McAvan, Hans Modrow, Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk, Karin Scheele (for Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler), Maj Britt Theorin and Jürgen Zimmerling.

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

After successive extensions of the Protocol to the Fisheries Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea ended in 31 December 2001, the Commission negotiated with this Country a new Fisheries Protocol intended to replace the existing one, to cover the period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008.

The Protocol, initialled by both parties on 27 June 2003 in Brussels, guarantees that the European fishing fleet can continue fishing in the Republic of Guinea, and is based on the results of a study to evaluate Guinea stocks direct by means of a scientific trawl survey carried out in October 2002.

The new Protocol grants fishing opportunities for fin-fish and cephaloped trawlers, for shrimp trawlers, for freezer tuna seiners, for pole-and-line tuna vessels and for surface longliners.

Fishing opportunities may increase in certain conditions mentioned in the agreement.

The financial contribution amounts to Euro 3 400 000, comprising Euro 2 000 000 in financial compensation and Euro 1 400 000 for measures aimed at achieving objectives associated with the sustainable management of Guinea fisheries resources. These amounts may be increased in 2005 up to a maximum of Euro 3 825 000 and in 2006 up to a maximum of Euro 4 250 000, in proportion to the possible increase in fishing opportunities.

An amount to buy two surveillance ships aimed to fight illegal fisheries is also included.

The Protocol will make it possible to promote business partnerships between Community operators and Guinea operators aimed at joint, responsible exploitation of Guinea fisheries resources.

Other Community fishing vessels not included in the protocol can no longer fish in Guinea waters (exclusivity clause).

A proposal for a Council Decision on the provisional application of this new Protocol pending its definitive entry into force is the subject of a separate procedure.

The European Parliament is therefore faced again with a "fait accompli".

The situation worsens because the Protocol minimises initiatives aiming the empowerment of local populations, therefore ignoring the coherence between the Union development and cooperation policy and the common fisheries policy.

The Development Committee considers that the Commission should have carried the negotiations in accordance with the new framework for partnership fisheries agreements with third countries (EP report Cunha - A5-0303/2003).

We stress, namely, the following recommendations:

…….

2.   "Welcomes the Commission proposal and its objective to better integrate environment and development aspects in the external relations of the CFP and insists that agreements, although of a commercial nature, must respect sustainable development of fishing industry of the development country concerned;

……..

14.   Calls for action to encourage the participation of local community organisations based on traditional forms of association, and for due attention to paid to the role played by women in the processing and marketing of fishery products".

It may have happened that the negotiation process went alongside the debate and adoption in Parliament of the Cunha report (adopted 11 September).

But the Parliament report was based on a Communication from the Commission which aimed to introduce innovative measures in fisheries agreements with third countries. It is not normal that at the same time the Commission initialises a document based on old to be replaced rules.

And it is even less normal that the initialised text is submitted to Parliament almost 6 months later for appreciation.

In addition, the European Parliament asked in its resolution based on the report Ojeda Sainz (A5-0264/2003) on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the extension of the 2000-2001 Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Revolutionary People's Republic of Guinea on fishing off the Guinea coast for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003, that:

Amendment 1, Article 3a new

"Prior to the conclusion of any negotiations on the renewal of the current Agreement, the Commission shall submit to Parliament and the Council a report on the Agreement's implementation. The report shall include a cost-benefit analysis which shall in turn ensure that the financial compensation for special measures for sustainable development contributes to improving the living conditions of the people of the country concerned".

Although in the Regulation's explanatory statement the Commission makes reference to a social clause in the Protocol, when reading it almost nothing can sustain that such an improvement in the living conditions of the Guinea populations is looked after.

In fact, Article 3 of the Protocol attached to the regulation does not include a direct application of funds of the new Protocol for activities directly aimed to developing local populations.

The very few references to this type of preoccupations are found in the legislative financial statement, namely in point 5.2.2 - Identification of the impacts of the new protocol. The Commission was not able to negotiate, did not want or was not pressed to do it, along the same line of the agreement signed about the same time with Mozambique.

In conclusion, the Protocol certainly assures that Community vessels can continue to fish Guinea waters with acceptable financial compensations, but does not assure the desired articulation between the fisheries common policy and the development policy of the European Union.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Development and Cooperation calls on the Committee on Fisheries, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

• [1] Not yet published in OJ.