Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-185"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Mid-term review of EU-Greenland fisheries protocol2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030902.8.2-185"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-02-Speech-2-1862
lpv:speaker	lp:Niels Busk2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Venstre (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-president; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, the Greenland agreement differs from the other fisheries agreements that the EU has entered into with third countries because it secures the EU access to fisheries resources via financial compensation and offers of market access for Greenland products. Nor shall I conceal the fact that, for me as a Danish parliamentarian, Greenland and the fisheries protocol with Greenland are of quite special importance. This is the fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland, and one which is of great value to both parties. The financial compensation amounts to EUR 900 per capita in Greenland and gives the EU access to Greenland fisheries products, which constitute more than 90% of Greenland’s total exports. The fisheries agreement with Greenland also makes it possible for fishing rights to be exchanged with Iceland, Norway and the Faeroe Islands, something that maintains an overall balance in the north-east Atlantic. The fourth protocol contains clear improvements on previous protocols in the shape of increased transparency, so that the Community’s quotas now correspond to the real fishing possibilities in Greenland’s waters, and the EU has, moreover, a continued option on the quantities laid down in the third protocol in the event of the stocks improving. There is good cause for acknowledging your contribution, Commissioner Fischler, to what you called ‘the historic agreement’. The fourth protocol proposes that, upon expiry of the protocol, under-utilised fishing possibilities might be used up by countries other than those that derive direct benefit from the agreement in accordance with the principle of relative stability. There is no doubt that the EU’s fisheries agreements with third countries are now a significant part of the common fisheries policy. The general expansion of the coastal states’ fishing zones to 200 nautical miles in the seventies meant that 95% of fishing stocks and 35% of the sea was subject to the coastal state legislation. Traditional fishing grounds were lost, and a need was created for cooperation with third countries in order to ensure the continued survival of the Community’s fishing fleets with a view to preserving the Community’s share of world catches and securing continued supplies of fish to the EU’s markets. The fisheries agreement with Greenland came into force in 1995 in connection with Greenland’s withdrawal from the EU as a result of the self-government agreement with Denmark. Unfortunately, the Commission neglected to inform the European Parliament of experimental fisheries and of the creation of joint ventures. Joint ventures are, in particular, something I expect a lot of, and I shall propose that we in the Committee on Fisheries initiate a discussion of their advantages and disadvantages. I am able, in the end, to support Mrs Miguélez Ramos's report, and I should like to commend the work she has done."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph