Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-14-Speech-4-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020314.5.4-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking Mr Maat for his report and for backing the Commission proposal. This is a new protocol, in which we have been able to use the excellent results from the previous agreement to increase fishing opportunities for tuna to 10 500 tonnes per annum.
There is now a new segment with fishing opportunities for shrimps and cephalopods, in return for which Gabon will receive financial compensation of EUR 1.2 million a year, a good 70% of which will be used to develop local fisheries in Gabon, that is, as development aid. We have also made several changes to the technical measures, in order to help guarantee the sustainable use of fish resources. They include, for example, a system of catch declarations and observers' reports.
Now to the individual proposed amendments. As far as Amendments Nos 1, 4 and 5 are concerned, we agree materially. We already meet these requirements under the current interinstitutional agreements, especially the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission of 5 July 2000, which is why these proposed amendments are redundant.
The Commission must reject Amendments Nos 2 and 9. Joint financing of catch opportunities negotiated is a fundamental aspect of Community foreign fisheries policy. What happens with agreements with third countries is that the financial compensation comes out of the Community budget and the shipowners pay the licences.
I should like to say, with respect to Amendments Nos 3 and 7, that the Commission obviously considers the sustainability of fisheries and the needs of local fisheries when it negotiates fisheries protocols. I therefore have nothing against these proposed amendments but I think that they are self-evident and do not therefore necessarily warrant separate mention.
As far as Amendment No 8 is concerned, fish stocks are evaluated before any protocol is renewed and both contracting parties can demand that the joint committee be convened at any given time in order to adjust the current protocol if problems with fish stocks should arise. I therefore feel that Amendments Nos 3, 7 and 8 are unnecessary.
I cannot accept Amendment No 6. According to standard practice, no new mandate is required for periodic protocols renewing fisheries agreements."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples