Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-13-Speech-4-110"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011213.7.4-110"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Mr Gallagher, for your report on the proposal for a regulation on a new protocol to the fisheries agreement with Mauritania. I am delighted that you are in full agreement with the terms of this proposal setting out and safeguarding the facility for our fleet to fish in Mauritanian waters until May 2006.
As you know, we have a history of good fisheries relations with Mauritania. Moreover, this agreement is now the Community's most comprehensive fisheries agreement and hence an important component of the Common Fisheries Policy. We signed the new protocol at the end of July after four rounds of intensive and tough negotiations and I think we really have brokered a fair agreement which benefits Mauritanian fishermen and the Mauritanian sector as well as our own fishermen, while guaranteeing sustainable stock management.
I really must say, Mr Farage, that you would be better advised to base your comments on fact than political posturing. So what exactly is the truth? The truth is that we have included a whole series of new measures in this agreement which were absent from earlier agreements. For example, some of the money goes directly towards improving scientific knowledge about resources. From now on, stocks will be regularly and scientifically monitored, and we have stipulated that, if the size of the stocks changes, then fishing opportunities must be adjusted accordingly, as must the relevant financial compensation. So it is quite untrue to say that we simply continue to fish the maximum catches, irrespective of how stocks develop. That is the reality. Secondly, we have based fishing rights on the data available, which Mauritania provided. According to the data which we received, it was possible at the present time to agree on a slight increase in fishing opportunities for cephalopods.
However, I should like to point out that this is not the lion's share of the agreement. The lion's share – around 40% – of catches under this agreement is accounted for by demersal species. And, just for the record, they do not mainly benefit Spain, as you maintain, they mainly benefit the Netherlands.
Thirdly, the agreement contains a series of terms allowing for the sustainable management of Mauritanian fish stocks and the development of the local economy. In order to protect local inshore fishing, we have moved the fishing areas for the Community fleet further away from the coast than was previously the case. In order to help the local economy and create jobs in the country itself, we have agreed that demersal fish trawlers must now land a larger proportion of their catches in Mauritania.
In addition, more Mauritanian seamen will be taken on board EU ships in future. Catch monitoring and controls have been strengthened and we have also increased the amount for so-called targeted actions significantly, by a total of EUR 20 million for the term of the agreement. These flanking measures will help alleviate the concerns expressed by the Committee on Development and Cooperation.
As to the proposed amendments, we have absolutely no objection to Amendment Nos 1, 3 and 5. In any case, these demands are already met under the interinstitutional agreements and, more importantly, under the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission of 5 July 2000, making these amendments superfluous. We have a problem with Amendment Nos 2, 4 and 6 and cannot therefore agree to them. As far as Amendment No 2 is concerned, the principle of non-discrimination is already laid down in the founding treaty of the European Union and there is therefore no sense in including this sort of clause. As far as Amendment No 4 is concerned, I should point out that our standard practice is that no new mandate is required for a protocol extending a fisheries agreement. As for Amendment No 6, mixed funding for negotiated fishing opportunities is part and parcel of our external fisheries policy. In the case of agreements with third countries, the cost of compensation is footed by the Community budget, with shipowners paying for the licences.
May I also take this opportunity of pointing out that the sum quoted in the amendments is incorrect and that, from a purely formal point of view, the amendment should refer to the protocol."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples