Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-26-Speech-1-124"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050926.16.1-124"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am sure that this House, like the Committee on Fisheries, will support the signing of this Fisheries Agreement between the European Union and the Comoros, which follows on from previous protocols and which will enable 57 Community vessels to fish until 2010.
As we know, the tuna fleet is requesting fishing licences from each country of the area so that it can follow schools of tuna that cross the different fishing grounds. This currently obliges it to take on a significant number of seamen from each of the countries, which turns each vessel into a miniature United Nations, sometimes causing insurmountable problems with languages, customs, traditions and also space, not to mention cost.
This is a totally absurd situation, as is the uncertainty over some of the more practical aspects, such as the actual definition of a tide or, for example, the mechanics of electronic transmissions. It may be understandable that negotiators do not take account of these details, but if we put ourselves in the shoes of a skipper for a moment, we will realise that, at the end of the day, his main concerns are administrative and personnel issues rather than the fishing itself.
Mr President, while calling, naturally, for the approval of this agreement, which is essential to the European supply of tuna and to the fisheries sector of the Comoros, I would like account to be taken of the comments I have made here.
This agreement also represents a further step in the new model of association agreements intended to promote even greater cooperation and greater involvement in the development of the third country’s fisheries sector. Nevertheless, while we support the principles behind this model, we must insist that it is far from clear.
Firstly, it is the first one to reach Parliament in which, unilaterally and without any request from the third country, the Commission has decided to raise the sum paid by shipowners per tonne fished from EUR 25 to 35, that is to say by 40%, and without having consulted them. The Commission defends itself by saying that the rise was anticipated in the conclusions of the 2004 Council of Ministers, but what we all deduced from those conclusions was that there would be a gradual increase in these payments, when in reality there has been a rather brutal rise by decree.
This Parliament, like the sector, finds itself faced with a
policy, carried out by the Commission’s negotiators quite independently, and without giving us the opportunity to examine those decisions more than fleetingly, and the protocol reaches our committee – increasingly late by the way – signed and sealed.
Our Institution does not believe that this situation of obscurantism should continue. I therefore propose in my report that shipowners now be allowed to attend joint committees so that they can at least be informed in real time of what is being prepared for them.
As far as Parliament is concerned, I would like to take this opportunity to ask once again – and this time I am addressing the Council, which is not present – for a member of the Committee on Fisheries to be present in the negotiations as an observer. We genuinely do not understand why it objects, since an observer cannot interfere in the decision-making, but if we were to be present, we would be better informed, which cannot do any harm, unless the negotiators have something to hide.
Equally serious, from a budgetary point of view this time, is the fact that, contrary to the Council’s conclusions, some of these agreements, such as the one we are dealing with today, are not respecting the obligatory differentiation between what is paid in return for fishing opportunities and what is paid as development aid.
From the point of view of budgetary transparency, this situation is unacceptable. Furthermore, the Commission is clearly aware of it and has admitted to the Committee on Fisheries that it is failing to comply with this obligation. However, it is not giving the slightest indication of what has led it to do so, at least in this case.
Finally, Mr President, for the sake of the necessary simplification and following an admirable period of patience on the part of this Parliament, the time has come to demand that the Commission present its model for regional agreements and, in particular, the tuna type of agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples