President. – The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0334/2001) by Mr Lannoye, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the Commission communication on fisheries and poverty reduction [COM(2000) 724 – C5-0071/2001 – 2001/2032(COS)].

  Lannoye (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, this communication from the Commission deals with a key issue for the developing countries: how can the fisheries policy conducted by these countries help reduce poverty?

I will now present the resolution adopted by the Committee on Development and Cooperation under a special procedure – the Hughes procedure – which means the Committee on Fisheries was closely involved in drawing up the report. Let me also point out that the resolution fully endorses the opinion delivered by the Committee on Fisheries.

In the report and the resolution, we start from two key premises. Firstly, in the developing countries, the respective contribution of the coastal communities to food security and employment make this sector a major factor of sustainable development and poverty reduction in these regions. Secondly, and unfortunately on a less positive note, we find a constant depletion of fish resources in these developing countries' fishing zones.

In the context of fisheries relations between the European Union and the developing countries, the Committee on Development believes that we need to encourage observance of the principles of the FAO's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. Let me remind you of the main points of this code: application of the precautionary principle in resource management, giving priority to the needs of coastal communities in the developing countries and, in particular, those engaged in small-scale fishing, active participation by those directly concerned, namely the local communities, and, finally, cooperation at sub-regional, regional and global level in promoting the conservation and management of resources.

To that end, the Committee on Development proposes a range of strategic measures focused on the need to ensure coherence between the European Union's sectoral policies and its development policy. I am thinking, of course, mainly of fisheries policy but also of regional policy.

The first proposal set out in the resolution is that EU development policy must pay greater attention to the developing countries' fishing industry by drawing up country-specific cooperation strategy documents resulting from the political dialogue between the European Union and the country concerned.

The second is that account must be taken of the need to improve the living conditions of coastal communities in the context of the various priority intervention areas defined within this cooperation strategy.

Thirdly, we must apply specific mechanisms to reinforce the organisations representing the small-scale fishing industry, and in particular in the area of processing fisheries products. I am thinking here of women's organisations, which are extremely important in the developing countries and have relatively few operating resources.

Fourthly, in the context of the fisheries agreements, abiding by the precautionary principle means carrying out prior scientific assessments of available resources; if there are any doubts, this precautionary principle must indeed be applied, meaning we must take the lowest hypothesis as the basis.

Fifthly, it is important for the European Union to support surveillance and monitoring programmes in the developing countries' exclusive economic zones. We are all aware that some of these countries do not have the necessary technical means to do so. That is why it is important for the European Union to make its contribution, so as to avoid over-fishing and the poaching activities of certain vessels. In that spirit we must also help these countries combat flags of convenience and other vessels which fish illegally in their exclusive economic zones.

Finally, our resolution calls on the Council to amend FIFG, so as to put a stop to grants of subsidies to Community ship-owners for transfers to flags of convenience.

I have not gone into every aspect, but I am sure my colleague, Mr Varela, in the Committee on Fisheries, will be happy to present the particular points his committee has proposed.

  Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Fisheries has unanimously approved the report for which I was rapporteur and that today is included in the Lannoye report. I requested the Hughes procedure, because the matter has a profound effect on both fisheries and development cooperation.

I sincerely believe that we in the Committee on Fisheries have significantly improved the original draft of the Lannoye report. We have contributed to focusing and balancing the hitherto exclusive point of view of the Committee on Development and Cooperation and particularly the opinions of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, that were held on this matter.

International fisheries agreements are not harmful to fishing, to the European Union, or to third countries, as is sometimes claimed. On the contrary, they are beneficial to all. We should try to ensure that this mutual benefit is enjoyed by all those concerned, and this cannot be achieved only by means of the CFP. The development cooperation policy should become more involved, with more economic, financial and technical measures, as requested by our report and as shown in the information given in the explanatory statement.

International fisheries agreements are trade agreements as the Council of the European Union acknowledged, even though they are dedicating more and more of their own funds to cooperation, yet they are of fundamental importance to cover the deficit in the supply of fish in the European Union and for jobs in Europe’s Objective 1 regions that we must also treat as a priority. Employment and economic and social cohesion in Europe are fundamental political principles of our Union.

Are we keen to preserve the resources of third countries? Of course. Is anyone more conservation-minded than the European Union? Would other foreign fishing powers, in Asia, for example, which would take our place if we left them to it, have more respect for these resources? Of course not.

I think that the criticisms voiced in the Lannoye report on the agreements with Mauritania and Senegal are completely unfounded. I also disagree with the regional approach that is proposed, because international fisheries agreements apply to exclusive economic zones that are come under the sovereignty of third countries, and each State is sovereign and has different political and economic interests. Multilateral cooperation in international waters would be another matter altogether.

I think, Mr President, that our Parliament has taken a positive step forwards. We would still ask the Commission to coordinate its cooperation and fishing competences. Parliament has set an example by coordinating our two committees and I think that this is right way to defend European interests, combining principles that we all advocate, such as the conservation of mankind’s natural resources and the eradication of poverty in the Third World, which requires development cooperation.

  Almeida Garrett (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, as we all know, reconciling various Community policies is a task that is necessary, but not always easy. To put it simply, when we are involved in the fight against world poverty, our work is not only important: it is crucial.

Fish are a universally scarce resource. For the coastal communities of the poorest countries that live exclusively from fishing, it is a precious resource on which their very survival depends. We are, therefore, very pleased with the Commission statement on fisheries and poverty reduction and endorse Mr Lannoye’s report, both of which provide an intelligent definition of principles and suggest options that will enable us to reconcile supply for the Community market with the catching, processing and marketing of fish from the countries with which we have fisheries agreements.

There is a wise Chinese proverb, which teaches that acting responsibly involves ‘not giving a man a fish but teaching him how to fish’. This proverb is also applicable here, but with some changes because the fish we catch in other waters belong, first of all, to other countries. Promoting scientific research into resources and the equal sharing of this knowledge with developing countries, aid for the organisation of local communities that depend on fishing, improving and promoting mechanisms for regional cooperation and support for fighting against flags of convenience and illegal fishing are, therefore, only some of the measures that show that the course of action now being proposed is the right one for us to take together.

  Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, on many occasions I, like many other of my fellow members, have lamented the lack of coordination between different Community policies and between the various Directorates-General of the Commission. I could even say the same for the Parliamentary Committees in this House. There would be no contradictions between the common fisheries policy (CFP) and the development cooperation policy if Community instruments – the budget, to be precise – were more transparent.

The European Union funds cooperation in fisheries with these countries in two different ways: international fisheries agreements and projects funded by the European Development Fund. An increasingly large proportion of financial compensation from the agreements is for this purpose – with regard to Madagascar, for example, it is 62% – which is not, of course, the ideal situation, given that the CFP is being asked to fund actions or compensations that have nothing to do with its real objectives.

Those who say that the Community does not help the fisheries sector of developing countries are wrong. In response to a question I asked recently, Commissioner Nielson informed me that the Community had undertaken, with funding of EUR 421 million from the European Development Fund, 334 programmes, projects or actions to support the fisheries sector in these countries. I would remind you that the largest current fisheries agreement, the agreement with Mauritania, involves around EUR 80 million per year.

I think that nothing could be of more use to the progress of developing countries than mutual trade with the European Union. Fisheries agreements allow them to obtain financial resources in return for giving the Community fleet fishing rights on various perishable resources whose capture, processing and marketing, require specialist companies and methods that these countries do not have themselves. In the same way that it would be absurd for us to oppose these countries’ exporting their agricultural products to Europe, it would be appalling if we were to deny them the opportunity of selling their surplus fish supplies at international prices.

This ill-informed approach to development cooperation would lead us to prevent developing countries from exporting their mining products to us, or to ask European energy companies to abandon these countries so that local companies can carry out operations, or to not pay Gabon or Nigeria the international price for a barrel of oil.

Lastly, it is worth pointing out that the fishing grounds where the Community fleet operate are in international waters that do not belong to any one country, but are in Exclusive Economic Zones, according to the International Law of the Sea Treaty, that obliges all countries to leave the surplus resources from these zones that they cannot exploit themselves for other countries to use. This should take place within the framework of the sustainable management of resources, which is what the CFP is designed to achieve. The fishing carried out by the Community fleet that operates in these waters is compatible with the local small-scale fleet, which maintains the monopoly within a 12-mile zone. An interesting project for all those involved would be to help those countries to better manage this zone where spawning takes place and where the highest concentration of young fish is to be found.

I congratulate Mr Lannoye on his excellent report and I ask everyone here to continue working on this cooperative approach.

  Van den Bos (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, poor, small fishermen are missing out because there are too many big rich fishermen. The European Union is suffering from severe excess capacity in the fishing industry, and is solving this problem by shifting some of the production to developing countries. Instead of modernising the fisheries sector, more than EUR 1 billion of government money is being spent on doing so every year.

Naturally, the governments of poor countries are delighted to receive large sums of money for allowing large-scale fishing in their waters. However, it is better to facilitate the development of the indigenous fishing industry in economically weak countries than it is to let local fishermen bob about in their boats while the enormous proceeds from the catches are credited to the accounts of big European ship-owners.

The precise consequences for fish stocks and the environment are unfortunately still unknown. However, it is certain that small, local operations will not be able to compete without subsidies or state support, and will thus continue to suffer a marginal existence. The Spanish and Portuguese fleets in particular will have to be curtailed in the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, there must be much stricter supervision of the way in which the developing countries spend their compensation payments. This spending must fit in with the policy of targeted poverty reduction. Local fisheries must also be involved in the spending to a much greater extent. The European fisheries policy must be brought much more closely in line with European development policy.

The European Union must systematically provide technical assistance for transferring knowledge about fisheries resources to developing countries. Most importantly, the poor countries must gain the know-how, the capacity and the investment they need in order to be able to fish in their own waters in a responsible way. In the longer term we must move away from these fishing agreements, which maintain redundant European fishermen but which cause developing countries to miss out.

  Fernández Martín (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, a debate on fishing and poverty is not simple. And, since the rapporteur belongs to the Group of the Greens, Mr Lannoye’s efforts towards synthesis are all the more creditable. Poverty is the world’s main problem today and it unfortunately will continue to be so for many years. For some of the poorest countries in the world, fishing is one of their main resources; in fact, for many of them, it is their only economic resource.

Mozambique receives 75% of its total income from the export of crustaceans, and this is a perfect example of a model of sustainable development. The rapporteur, Mr Lannoye, should be credited with proposing a realistic text, which retains a laudable dose of utopianism.

I must say that the Commission’s proposal is coherent with the objective of responding to European interests, while making it compatible with a frame of reference for the development of countries for which fishing is an essential resource in their fight against poverty.

I have mentioned the case of Mozambique, but it would be unfair not to say that there are other very positive aspects to this African country’s efforts to move forward, and there are other African countries which are acting well in relation to fishing, such as Namibia, to give but one example.

It seems pertinent to insist on the need for the Union to be especially careful in complying with the code of conduct for responsible fishing, to which we are committed as members of the FAO. We must wait for the authorities of the developing countries to make the same effort. It is true that certain practices – as Mr Lannoye has mentioned – in certain specific cases of Community operators are unacceptable, but it is also the case that, sometimes, these practices would not be possible without the cooperation of the local operators involved.

This problem is serious and complex and I therefore repeat that the efforts of the Commission and the rapporteur are creditable in that they offer us a balanced approach to it.

  Martínez Martínez (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, at a meeting a few days ago of Portuguese and Spanish Socialists in Santiago de Compostela, we said that European Union policies must always be judged in terms of the added value they contribute in the field of social cohesion. We thereby insisted that our Union must be, amongst other things but, for us, essentially, a great framework for intra-European solidarity.

Naturally, this approach also goes for the actions of the united Europe in its relations with other countries, in particular the developing countries. So the policies of the European Union relating to these countries must also be judged in terms of the added value they contribute in relation to social cohesion, in other words, in terms of their contribution to progress towards a more balanced world with fewer inequalities.

Therefore, while agreeing with the excellent and – in my opinion – not utopian report by Mr Lannoye, and speaking for the Parliament’s Committee on Development and Cooperation, we Socialists believe that we must take this criterion into account in assessing our fisheries policies and the agreements with third countries which make up these policies. I will not say that these agreements must be seen fundamentally as instruments of our development cooperation policy. We understand that there are other legitimate objectives, including the defence of the interests of the fisheries sectors in the Member States of the Union. But we would say that this fisheries policy must not contradict what we do in the field of cooperation and, above all, it must not contradict, either in the immediate, medium or long terms, the priority strategic objective we have set in the field of development cooperation, that is, the eradication of poverty in the countries of the South.

In summary, we aspire to a fisheries policy which is coherent with what we are doing in relation to development cooperation. A fisheries policy which, at least as a collateral effect, contributes to the eradication of poverty in the countries with which we sign agreements so that we may fish in their waters.

As well as respecting our partners and their rights as owners of those waters, we must learn the necessary lessons from our experience, which led us to exhaust the fish stocks off our coasts. It would be intolerable to repeat the same mistake in the fishing grounds of people for whom fishing may provide resources which are important for their own future. This respect and coherence with our goal of sustainable development for all must prevent egotistical and conceited actions by us, and by others who, equally irresponsible, through fishing activity in the third world, brought to reality the Spanish saying which says that we ‘brought these people bread for today and hunger for tomorrow’.

  Lage (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, fishing is an activity that mankind has practised throughout history, but it has never been a great source of wealth, as demonstrated by the fact that the Neolithic revolution was achieved through agriculture and not through fishing. Although the European Union’s fishermen currently enjoy a degree of protection and guarantees that offer them an acceptable standard of living, albeit lower than that of many other workers, the same cannot be said, unfortunately, of the fishermen and fishing communities to be found throughout the developing countries. For these reasons, the Commission communication should be welcomed, praised and supported, since it contains a clearly humanist approach that is enlarged upon in Mr Lannoye’s report. This acknowledges that fishing is an essential activity for many developing countries, but is threatened with extinction because resources are scarce and pressure on the various species is increasing.

The fisheries agreements that the European Union concludes with third countries are essential to the survival of activities and cultures that are an integral part of the history and identity of many European countries. Nevertheless, these agreements cannot ignore and fail to respond to their impact on the vulnerable economies of the world’s poorer countries and regions. We therefore need to reconcile the legitimate interests of Community fishermen and consumers with the interests of poor communities in developing countries and with the preservation of fish stocks that are often devastated by an irrational method of fishing, that is also carried out under flags of convenience.

In conclusion, the golden rule in this field must be to integrate the external requirements of the common fisheries policy into the overall policy of support for development already embarked on by the European Union. Lastly, I should like to express my support for the excellent work by Mr Lannoye, which shares, as I have already said, the Commission’s inspiration and contains extremely constructive and fair proposals to which we must give our support.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission welcomes the very wide-ranging report and the proposed motion for a resolution, the content of which was formulated by the Committee on Development in close cooperation with the Committee on Fisheries. I also would like to sincerely thank you, Mr Lannoye, for your valuable work on this in your capacity as rapporteur.

Your motion for a resolution stresses the need to take greater account in future of the development potential of local fisheries, especially small-scale coastal fisheries, and the needs of fisheries-dependent coastal communities. As is clear from the Commission communication entitled ‘Fisheries and Poverty Reduction’, the Commission wants to take a more sector-based approach in promoting closer partnership and political dialogue with the developing countries. The developing countries’ responsibility for determining their own development priorities and interests will be recognised and also directly encouraged.

Let me now turn briefly to the various development problems that should in future be taken into account in fisheries agreements and to which you expressly refer in your resolution. The following in particular are mentioned as necessities. The quantities that the Community fleet is allowed to catch must not result in local fish stocks being decimated, and fisheries agreements must be signed only if they are compatible with sustainable development of the sector in the developing country concerned. The Commission is of the opinion that these principles, mentioned in the resolution, for taking account of development questions in the external aspects of the common fisheries policy are in harmony with the principles set out in the Commission communication on fisheries and poverty reduction and in the Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy. And we do in fact respect them when concluding fisheries agreements with third countries.

In accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, we base our fisheries agreements on the available surplus stocks that the third country in question does not fish. The Commission also expressly shares the view that the principle of sustainable management of natural resources must be more strictly applied. These same principles will also be taken into consideration in the debate on the reform of the common fisheries policy initiated by the publication of the Green Paper a short while ago.

Let me come to a final point, which concerns improved coordination between development cooperation policy and the external aspects of the common fisheries policy. I can say that the Commission shares Parliament’s view on this. The country and regional strategy papers produced in cooperation with the developing countries must pay greater attention to the link between development cooperation and the external aspects of the common fisheries policy. We will therefore also be addressing this subject in connection with the reform that is now being prepared.

This really is my final point: Mr Lannoye, you pointed out that it would be important to suspend structural aids from the structural programmes if a ship is transferred to a third country. On this I can say that in the discussion about the extension of MAGP IV, which is coming next, we shall have to bear in mind that this thought has already been taken up in the proposal for extending MAGP IV and it is already part of the proposal. I hope that this will also meet with Parliament’s approval.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place this afternoon at 6.30 p.m.