Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-339"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.13.3-339"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, since I first raised this question it has been interesting to see, in terms of language, how the approach of Members of Parliament and the Commission has actually changed. The Commission came to the Committee on Fisheries and said 'We have no way of negotiating a new agreement so we shall just extend it for another year'. Members indicated that the aim of this was to allow EU vessels to continue fishing despite the conflict.
You are now actually trying to give the impression that this is somehow about helping the people in Côte d'Ivoire: the reality is that this is about helping ourselves. This is a country that is virtually in a state of civil war. It is impossible for the government to guarantee control and surveillance – in fact these were never satisfactory, even during peace time.
What happens now is that the EU fleets can do what they like with no supervision whatsoever. The Commission actually promised a different approach to third-country agreements and this does not bode well. With respect to Côte d'Ivoire, the Commission has itself noted that the country faces serious problems in the control and surveillance of its waters. The state of monitoring is described as a major constraint.
The Commission also noted that no information was actually received on the catches of surface long-liners and freeze trawlers. The Commission has also stated that, under the current terms of its third-country agreements, including the one with Côte d'Ivoire, it is impossible to know whether the money intended for the so-called targeted actions such as control and enforcement is, in fact, spent in the appropriate manner.
We have said that this money should be placed in a separate budget. When it comes to the tuna canneries, look at where the main profits are going: there is complete hypocrisy here. This is a country in a state of conflict and it looks like the EU's approach is to allow our fleets to continue undisturbed, despite the fact that there is a conflict going on.
This is the worst example ever of a fisheries agreement, and the Commission has to live up to its commitments and its promise to take a different approach to fisheries agreements where that is in the interest of the third country rather than in the interest of the European Union's over-capacity."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples