Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-28-Speech-4-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991028.4.4-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, thank you for your various efforts to track me down, and for the opportunity to be able to speak now! Commissioner, because of the development of international maritime law in the 1970s, traditional fishing grounds were lost to European fleets. Approximately 35% of world seas and 90% of fishing stocks are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of coastal states. The European Community was therefore forced to conclude international agreements in order to retain access to fishing grounds and thus ensure the livelihood of the Community’s fishermen. More than two dozen fisheries agreements with third countries are currently in force, ranging from a straight exchange of fishing rights to agreements for access to stocks in return for financial compensation payments.
I would like at this point to stress the vital significance of the fisheries agreements for the EU. They finally constitute and facilitate a guarantee of job security in the EU. Approximately 40,000 workers are employed in this sector, and thus the existence of an international agreement, such as the agreement with Morocco, also plays an essential role with regard to the supplying of consumers and the fish processing industries, and thus to sustainable prices. We can see what a fundamental matter of concern the fisheries agreements represent for the EU. The negotiations must therefore be driven forward until further agreements or renewed agreements are signed.
Today we are discussing the renewal of the agreement with Morocco. This agreement – I still clearly remember the long drawn-out negotiations four years ago, which were the subject of many parliamentary resolutions – has exceptionally important social and economic consequences, especially, of course, as we have just heard, for the less favoured regions of Spain and Portugal. Around 8,000 fishermen and 20,000 jobs in the processing industry are directly affected by this agreement. The previously applicable compensation payments of over EUR 400 million to Morocco over the course of four years make the agreement the most significant fisheries agreement in the Community Budget. Due to these considerable financial repercussions on the EU-budget, as we have just heard, the assent procedure comes into play. This is a challenge to Parliament. The effects of non-renewal would be catastrophic. There would then be the threat that thousands of jobs would be lost, with widespread effects not only on the entire Iberian Peninsula but also on the status of Europe in this important sector of industry.
Unfortunately matters are not so simple. Morocco is reluctant to start negotiations or to come to terms too quickly. It is playing for time. Nonetheless, the Community should not have the objective of striving to come to an agreement on any terms due to pressure of time. On several occasions in the past, Morocco has unilaterally presented obstacles which were not covered by the agreement. The situation where the costs of the agreement are continually increased while the fishing areas and seasons are continually reduced is unacceptable. The European Parliament, and the Committee on Fisheries in particular, are generally very concerned about the renewal of this particular agreement. Why did the Council take so long to give the Commission its mandate for negotiation? Where, Mr Fischler, are the Commission’s long-announced cost-benefit analyses?
The economic and social consequences in the event of expiry of the agreement for Community fishermen are sufficiently known. Why then this hesitation, which in the end is playing into Morocco’s hands, cutting the ground out from under the feet of EU fishermen? Clarification is essential here, and in short order. In the interests of EU fishermen, Parliament must make a clear statement (and that is what it is indeed doing, as we are just learning now) to put an end to this intolerable situation as quickly as possible. If not, I fear a negative effect on international agreements per se. This means, as Mr Posselt said, ultimately a negative effect on Europe’s foreign policy too. I therefore consider it necessary as a matter of urgency, today and tomorrow, to give a signal and invite the Commission to actually initiate measures up now for the financial aid of those affected. Moreover, I expressly ask that Parliament, represented by us, the Members of this House, should now actually participate directly in the negotiations on the agreement. There can be no further doubt about our involvement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples