Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-29-Speech-5-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991029.4.5-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in his capacity as rapporteur, Mr Cunha has called on me to present his report. The Protocol to the EU-Angola fisheries agreement, as mentioned, already expired on 2 May this year. A new Protocol was signed by both parties. This Protocol laid down the technical and financial conditions whereby Community ships are permitted to fish in Angolan waters in the period from 3 May 1999 to 2 May 2000. Apart from the extremely short period of validity of the Protocol, one year instead of three, and the fact that the tuna quota was increased, the Protocol is identical to the previous one.
This Protocol is significant for the EU, however, from the budgetary viewpoint alone. EUR 10.3 million is already a large sum in itself, and we do not even have a guarantee that we can interrupt payments in the event that Angola stipulates a closed season for shrimp fishing. Moreover, we are not making the most of our fishing entitlement, with the exception of tuna vessels where 100% of permitted capacity is taken up. Only 63% of shrimp vessel capacity is taken, and 0% of dredger capacity.
We also must give serious consideration to the funds allocated to scientific programmes (EUR 1.7 million), training (EUR 1 million) and studies (EUR 350,000). There is no clause authorising the Commission to check whether these funds are used correctly. For their part, the Angolan authorities are not obliged to account for how the funds are used. In this area, the rapporteur recommends that all payments under the agreement should be dealt with by the Angolan Central Bank. This is valid for reasons of security and transparency, especially as Angola is still in a state of war.
The Commission made a sound choice in concluding a protocol with only a one year duration because Angolan fish stocks have been exploited intensively over recent years, particularly by the Soviet fleet, which has led to a spectacular drop in catch levels. We have also heard that, as a result, licences will not be distributed to shipowners belonging to the EU. If we consider the repercussions of this, we could conclude that fishing in Angolan waters is a rather risky matter as far as the EU is concerned. Nevertheless, as the rapporteur says, we can be optimistic. The number of tuna vessels and surface longliners has increased. This is generally a reliable indicator of the state of deep-sea stocks, and so can be viewed positively. However, the Protocol does not contain any international standards regarding the conservation and rationing of fish stocks. Having a closed season is certainly an effective means of preserving fish stocks, and this has been borne out in practical and scientific terms. An international framework is necessary, however, otherwise the fear remains that Angola could abuse the close season to the detriment of the EU. The Commission has to ensure in this regard that shipowners are informed in good time, i.e. at least three months in advance.
My conclusions are as follows: The negotiations are obviously important. The current political situation in Angola is deplorable, all the more so given the fact that it is fundamentally a potentially rich and geopolitically important country. What the Protocol lacks, however, is precise information on the state of fish stocks in Angola. The Committee on Fisheries has submitted the appropriate amendments so as to obtain this information.
For this reason, we are not in a position to talk about a new fisheries agreement. The results of the negotiations should be supported however and should serve as a basis for a comprehensive Protocol or a new fisheries agreement in the future. In return, the rapporteur expects Angola to observe the interinstitutional agreement on budgetary discipline and to improve its budgetary procedure in connection with financing the expenditure arising from this fisheries agreement, which is extremely important as far as we are concerned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples