This is the case, despite the fact that our fleet fish in waters outside the EU, which are not presently subject to any quotas or TAC. It is incongruous and clearly discriminating to our fleet and I am afraid that if compensatory mechanisms are not established allowing us to equally fight with the same conditions as third countries for fishing in the same grounds (although third countries’ operational, social and fiscal costs are a lot lower, and they are a lot less rigorous about complying with various regulations affecting the fishing industry) then the fleet is heading for a situation where it will disappear entirely, or go in search of registration with less demanding flags.

With regards to the access to third country waters, our fleet needs to dispose of a wide network of fisheries agreements because of the highly migratory nature of tuna.

We therefore back the EU’s objective to strengthen and widen the network of present agreements in the Atlantic and especially the Indian Oceans where there is greater necessity and the tuna fleet’s presence is greater.

Here we should emphasize the conclusions drawn up in the EU Fisheries Ministers Council on 31 October 1997, which referred to the social and economic advantages of these agreements and the strategic importance of the presence of European fleets in third countries fishing grounds.

The profitability of fisheries agreements for the EU has been proven and they also generate a social-economic pact in sub-Saharan African coastal countries in both Atlantic and Indian Oceans, where a number of important jobs are provided on land and at sea. There is also an important industrial growth in these areas with repairs workshops, canning factories, ports, stevedores and shipping agencies for example as well as an important number of jobs along with it.

If the EU does not establish its presence, their place will be taken by some other country with a less rigorous policy for fishing activities. Consequently our sector wishes that the policy is continuous, lasts longer and has greater stability in fisheries agreements, which are adapted to our particular fish stocks since we have seen that they often apply technical clauses which are not viable for highly migratory species.

As for the situation with the fisheries resources caught by our fleets, I believe that it is not of great concern nowadays but that we should be attentive to the problematic situation of managing immature species such as Bigeye, since up until now measures which have been applied in certain Regional Fisheries Organizations (ICCAT) are not efficient and very negative consequences for the captures of our main species yellowfin and skipjack.

First and foremost, it would be advisable to have greater control over the excessive, uncontrolled use of long-line fishing which, unlike the tuna purse seiners, is totally out of control and does not comply with any of the fishing standards set for the tuna purse seiners.

On the other hand, it would also be beneficial that the EU’s political weight in Regional Fisheries Organizations corresponded in quality and quantity to the European Fleet.

With this in mind, in our opinion it is necessary that there be an increase in human capital and in the EU’s budget for highly migratory species.

Finally I must mention TRADE: the sharp edge of our problems. Unfortunately our sector is once again suffering a most delicate situation because of present price levels. With present prices for tuna embodying the exploitation, social and fuel costs which have to be faced, it is incredibly difficult to guarantee continuity for our companies.

In comparison to our friends in the European canning sector, the fishing activity has no protection via tariffs for imports of tuna as a raw material.

The Community preference principle is not applied, and the compensation indemnities mechanisms have been totally impaired as a consequence of successive modifications brought by the last reforms in the EU’s Common Fisheries Markets Organization.

The problem is once again brought about by massive tuna imports in the Community market, many of which are vetoed in other important markets such as the United States because of protection policies for dolphins caught in the Eastern Pacific Ocean along with yellowfin tuna.

Paradoxically, the EU forbids its own Community ship owners to used these fishing techniques but does not ban their trade, which as well as distorting the Community market by allowing imports to enter which have been banned elsewhere, we are also risking a secondary embargo from the USA.

In our view, if we wish to continue to be owners of an European tuna purse seine fleet, there should be tariff measures and control techniques established for imports, both the whole tuna and tuna steaks in the same way as has been set for the canning industry that have a 24% tariff.

There should also be safeguard measures, which the EU have presently forgotten, to act swiftly against this massive tuna import situation.

A strict control of tuna fish origins must be imposed, and in particular for the sanitary conditions of imports. All ship owners operating in the EU market would thus do so under the same conditions, and we would therefore not see other fleets not meeting even the minimum standards that are being imposed on us. These other fleets are selling their catch in total immunity and making the most of the EU’s madcap free-trade “open door” policy whilst their own fishermen are subject to severe regulations.