Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.13.3-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Cunha, in his absence and wish him well in his new job.
Third-party fishing agreements have come under a lot of scrutiny recently, with headlines such as 'EU fishing fleets devastate Third World' and 'West African nations to ban EU fishing fleets'. A recent WWF report highlighting the problems in Angola makes for interesting reading. On the one hand, the EU is providing emergency aid to Angola but, on the other, has signed a fishing agreement which would take from Angolan waters vital fish stocks which go to some of the poorest people in the world.
According to UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, which focused on Mauritania, Argentina and Senegal, all countries have noticed a depletion in their stocks after signing third-party fishing agreements. In Mauritania, catches of octopus have halved in the past four years and in Senegal two thirds of the country's export earnings are reliant on fish exported to Europe. Over half the fish we consume in the EU now comes from outside the EU and half of this is on the basis of third-party fishing agreements.
Of primary concern is the subsequent depletion of fish stocks, the dependence of local communities in developing countries on these stocks for their own food, the poor enforcement rules and catch limits and the apparent contradictions that seem to exist between the EU fisheries policy and EU development policy. All these issues concern many MEPs.
The need for environmental impact to be taken into consideration with third-party fishing agreements is paramount. I like the fact that the rapporteur has underlined the importance of sustainable fisheries and is highlighting this fact, which should apply to all vessels within the waters affected.
However, I regret that, for example, in Angola where 35% of the EUR 15.5 million paid is supposed to go towards small-scale fisheries projects, it is actually unclear if this money will go to this aim or not. These concerns are very real and that is why I support the ELDR's Amendment No 2. This amendment would make new fishing agreements dependent upon the presentation of satisfactory evidence that monies paid under the previous agreements for targeted measures have been spent as intended.
We should not be seen to be renewing agreements where the third party has not fulfilled their side of the bargain. However, fishing agreements should not be signed if they would be detrimental to the long-term socio-economic interests of the country concerned. Third-party fishing agreements play an important role in providing the EU with fish. However, what are we going to do when their fish stocks run out? We should not be destroying the viability of countries and crucial stocks for the future for short-term gain. Third-party fishing agreements must take into account the future viability of stocks."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples