Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.7.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commissioner has already addressed the basic issue: the report adopts the results of the negotiations between the Commission and Angola, and even welcomes the way in which the negotiations were concluded and the protocol offers interesting fishing opportunities for the Member State fleets and is today the second largest, I believe, after the agreement signed with Mauritania.
The new protocol is the ninth since the Fisheries Agreement between the European Community and Angola entered into force in 1997; this new protocol applies to the period between August 2002 and August 2004, provides access for 33 tuna vessels and 22 shrimp-fishing vessels. The tuna fishing quotas are shared out between France, Spain and Portugal – it should be noted that the previous protocol provided access for 43 European Tuna vessels, slightly more than the current number.
With regard to demersal fishing, Spain has received the lion’s share, with Portugal, Italy and Greece sharing the rest. The annual financial compensation has risen from EUR 14 million to EUR 15.5 million, which is to be applauded. This is a contribution by the European Union to the development of fishing in Angola. EUR 5.5 billion are going to specific measures for research, control and monitoring, as the Commissioner has already rightly pointed out.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would not want to end my brief intervention without mentioning the fact that Angola is a terrible and shocking paradox: Angola is a vast territory, with a population of around 13 million inhabitants, has truly amazing underground resources such as oil and diamonds – suffice it to say that its oil, the production of which will increase in the next two years, represents around 15% of US consumption – but most of this money does not go to those in Angola who are suffering an appalling tragedy of hunger and misery. One report by the International Monetary Fund even states that EUR four billion have been poured into the State’s coffers but have moved along impenetrable and tortuous routes.
Does this mean that the European Union should not support Angola? No it does not! What it means is that Angola has entered a new phase in its history, which has been plagued by civil wars, death and destruction. Angola’s fishing industry is extremely interesting. I remember, although it is always risky to depend on one’s memory, that in 1973, when Portugal was still the colonial administrator, around 490 000 tonnes of fish were brought into Angolan ports. This is something I read in a book on the history and economy of Angola. In 1999, around 190 000 tonnes were brought in. This means, then, that Angolan fishing has suffered a major fall and is now recovering, partly because it is no longer a State-run industry and is essentially in private hands. It also means, however, if the scientific data are not misleading, that Angola has considerable opportunities for fishing and that Angolan waters contain a wealth of fish. The texts also state that fishing in Angola represents 3% of the gross national product and so any effort to support the Angolan fishing industry is to be welcomed. I therefore wish to congratulate the Commissioner and the Commission on the result they have achieved.
(
)"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples