Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.13.3-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by expressing my best wishes to Mr Cunha; may they go home with him on his new political journey. Let me follow that up with an old adage – not to say an old truth – to the effect that Europe has too few fish; the waters around the Member States cannot meet our demand for them. That is a fact, and it is one with which we have to deal. Let me take this opportunity to emphasise the fundamental point that we have not started by emptying European waters of fish, only to seek out new fishing grounds in which to do the same thing. It is far more a case of traditional European fishing grounds having been lost as a result of the extension of the exclusive economic zones to 200 nautical miles, which happened as long ago as the 1970s. It is in order to compensate for this loss that the EU has concluded fisheries agreements with third states.
Today, we have twenty-one of these agreements with countries in both the North and the South. The contribution they make to Europe’s economy is an important one; it might even be described as irreplaceable. We, for our part, get the fresh fish that we urgently need, whilst important jobs are safeguarded at home and abroad in the fishing and fish-processing industries. With such a resource as fish, though, a resource that is finite and sensitive to adverse environmental factors, economic considerations must not obscure environmental ones or blind us to conditions in the third countries.
That is why I very much welcome the Commission’s new joint approach. I also believe that it needs to be brought to life, and it is more compatible with our objective of sustainable fisheries. The agreement is nonetheless concerned with a commercial activity, that is to say, simply with fishing in foreign waters and with the economic yield derived from it. I take the view that the amount of funding should reflect the real value of the fishing rights. Fisheries policy should not be used to cloak the objectives of development policy. That is what we have specific budget lines for, and that is why I am not the only one to take this line.
I would like to see fisheries agreements in the future too – modern and sustainable ones, founded on partnership – but the benefits and burdens must be shared out fairly among all parties. Furthermore, we cannot look at these things from the perspective of using European money to provide permanent subsidies, if only a few Member States end up reaping the rewards. Nor should we forget the decisive point that Parliament must be better informed in view of the large amounts expended from the European Budget. Indeed, I take the view – and I am certainly not the only one to do so – that Parliament must have a part to play in negotiations, not tomorrow, but today. This is where something, at last, needs to be done!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples