Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-179"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.8.2-179"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Greenland is an autonomous region of Denmark. It was part of the Community between 1973 and 1984. In 1984 a referendum was held in Greenland and 52% of its inhabitants expressed their wish to withdraw from the Union. Thereafter, relations with Greenland have been governed by the Greenland Treaty. This treaty accords Greenland a similar status to that enjoyed by 19 other territories, namely Overseas Country and Territory status. As a result fisheries products from Greenland may be exported freely to the Community in return for a favourable fisheries agreement. The latter was originally intended to last 10 years but has been extended several times.
There is actually no provision for the promotion of joint venture companies or of temporary relationships between undertakings. Arrangements of this nature could prove very beneficial for Greenland, given that its economy is stagnating. They could also be beneficial to the Community. EUR 6 million was set aside for this purpose under the previous agreement.
My fifth comment is that the agreement includes quotas for species such as cod and Norway haddock that are almost non-existent in Greenland waters. The Community pays for these although nothing is caught.
We welcome the fact that the negotiators agreed on more realistic quotas in June. This means there will be increased opportunities for catching halibut, shrimps and queen crab. We are glad the negotiators made an effort to do away with the so-called paper fish.
My sixth comment is that the Community’s financial contribution has increased for each successive protocol. At the same time, the fishing opportunities have decreased. Viewed in this light, the agreement is not sustainable. Further, the protocol is inconsistent, as Mrs Langenhagen stated at the time.
In conclusion, the Commission is certainly to be congratulated on reconsidering the current arrangements with Greenland. It is encouraging that sensible steps have been taken. I mentioned some of them. They are part of the agreement reached with Greenland in June. Nonetheless, we believe that the Commission should be more ambitious and strive to introduce radical changes as of now.
I assume the hope is that this fisheries agreement will cease to violate the principles we hold most dear. I refer to the principles underpinning Community financial provisions, namely transparency and optimal use of financial resources. More than a simple cosmetic review is needed.
There is every reason why the European Union should support Greenland. A fisheries agreement is not the best way for the Union to do so, however. I made this clear to the Fisheries Minister for Greenland at our meeting here in Strasbourg last July. Greenland is the key to the development of the Union’s Arctic dimension. It would therefore be appropriate to consider financing areas of that relationship other than fishing with recourse to heading 4 of the financial perspective. Another option would be to finance them through the European Development Fund.
Be that as it may, Parliament is basing its position on this report by the Committee on Fisheries. The House trusts that the Commission and the Council will take its position into account as of now. That would be the ideal. If this is not possible, our position should be borne in mind when preparing for negotiations on a new agreement in 2006.
The 2002 fourth protocol provided for the mid-term review currently under way. The review is justified because of the lengthy period of time involved and the significant sums at stake.
The scope of the communication from the Commission extends beyond matters relating exclusively to fisheries. This is because relations with Greenland involve many other issues. The Committee on Fisheries therefore believes Parliament must take the initiative and draft a general report dealing with political relations, development aid to Greenland and fisheries relations. The report should be set in the broader context of the Arctic dimension.
(Madam President, I must point out that I am unable to see on the screen an indication of the number of minutes elapsed since I took the floor. I would like to know how much time I still have available.)
As I was saying, in addition to dealing with relations between Greenland and the Union, the communication from the Commission contains a review of the current state of the agreement. Any amendment would have to be approved by the competent local authorities in Greenland. Consequently a thorough review is suggested, but only after 2006 when the agreement expires. A mere adjustment is proposed for the intervening period.
Nonetheless, it is important to bear in mind criticisms made in the House and by the Court of Auditors. We therefore believe that even in the case of minor adjustments, the principles of good governance, transparency and optimal use of Community financial resources should be applied here and now. There is no need to wait until 2006 to do so.
The conclusions reached by my colleague Mrs Langenhagen on the fourth protocol two years ago are still perfectly valid, as far as the mid-term review stage is concerned. There is a need to take issues other than fisheries out of the agreement. It is also necessary to keep the European Parliament informed on the use of fishing rights and to promote the establishment of joint venture companies. In addition to promoting joint venture companies, the Committee on Fisheries is now calling for the promotion of temporary relationships between undertakings. Such arrangements are more flexible. In this case they are better suited also to the current situation of both the European Community’s fisheries sector, and the fisheries sector in Greenland. The Committee on Fisheries is also calling for the cost of the agreement to be shared fairly, as is the case for agreements for the southern regions where the cost is divided equitably between the shipowners and the Community budget. I note, Commissioner, that the Commission has not even suggested this for the current adjustment. Further, the reason adduced does not seem to me to be particularly convincing. The reference to the small size of the administration in Greenland does not really provide adequate justification.
The European Union pays Greenland a substantial sum each year in return for this agreement. The amount involved is EUR 42.82 million per year. This makes it the second most expensive agreement of all, after that with Mauritania. The price is actually exorbitant if it is also taken into account that at least EUR 14 million is not linked in any way to payment for fishing opportunities or the development of the fisheries sector. The fishing opportunities relating to the remaining EUR 28 million have a very low take up. Only the German, Danish, British and French fleets have quotas. No other fleets are allowed to make use of fishing opportunities paid for but not fished. This is certainly not the case under the southern agreements.
Commissioner Fischler, we are delighted that this taboo was broken in the agreement reached between the Commission and the Government of Greenland in June. We welcome the fact that other fleets will be allowed access to fish for certain species and for experimental fishing activities, even if access is restricted."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples