Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-193"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.11.3-193"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we can only express our satisfaction at the conclusion of a new fishing protocol with a third country, with which we already enjoy a long history of working together. This protocol guarantees three things of enormous importance: the continuation of the supply of fish and Community employment; the safeguard which is always offered to a fishing region by the presence of fleets which, like the European fleet, are subject to regulations and responsibilities in relation to the control and management of activities, and, naturally, the Community contributions to improving the local fishing sector, contributions which are specifically laid out here.
I therefore ask that you support the three amendments which have been presented by the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries.
However, we do not feel able to vote in favour of Amendment No 4, which insists that the whole cost of the agreement be financed by the shipowners. Although this is a traditional demand by a political group in this House which has always been rejected, to propose it when another more than controversial protocol has just been concluded, in which the shipowners involved not only do not pay the 25% which is paid in this case, but pay absolutely nothing, is particularly offensive.
Furthermore, in view of the agreements concluded with the countries of the North, it is incomprehensible to read in the explanatory statement that there is a lack of transparency in the agreement with Equatorial Guinea. To begin with, in this protocol, all the items, including those on cooperation with local fishing, are not only itemised, but are set out to the last penny, something which does not happen in other agreements, where any differentiation between what is financial compensation and what is development aid is non-existent. We must put an end then to attempts to create more obstacles for certain agreements, which, compared to others, are exemplary in terms of transparency and details, something which the Council agrees with, having called for greater equality of treatment since 1997.
While we are on the subject of agreements, I would like to end by mentioning the Commission’s working programme for this year, whose timetable for the renewal of protocols is incomprehensible. By way of example, the negotiation with Cape Verde, which has been pending since November of last year, does not even appear in the Commission’s timetable. And in the majority of cases, the mandates for negotiation that have been planned are contingent on the agreement being concluded, as in the flagrant example of Gabon, an agreement which expires on 30 March and whose mandate for negotiation is planned for the fourth quarter of the year.
Commissioner, I am sorry to say that the least the Commission can do is keep its agenda up to date. Anything less is shameful."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples