Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-336"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.13.3-336"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for his very fulsome presentation. One of the great pleasures of chairing the Committee on Fisheries is having to come here late at night to address an empty chamber on international fisheries agreements with far flung corners of the globe. This is no exception.
However, this evening's debate on Côte d'Ivoire has been provoked, not on the usual matters relating to third-country fisheries agreements, but by the Verts/ALE and ELDR groups, who have expressed quite legitimate concerns over the current civil war in that country, and their fears that Community funding should not be sent to a zone of conflict lest it pour petrol on the flames.
As the House will know, the main rebel army in Côte d'Ivoire, who call themselves the New Forces, signed a French-brokered peace deal with Prime Minister Seydou Diarra last January. Sadly, this peace pact partially crumbled in September when the New Forces walked out of the government, accusing President Laurent Gbagbo of hoarding power and refusing to implement the conditions of the peace pact. Meanwhile, President Gbagbo has announced his intention to liberate rebel-held zones in the North and West of the country should the New Forces refuse to disarm. That is the position of Côte d'Ivoire today.
It is against this rather unfavourable background that my report on the Commission's proposal seeks to extend the current fisheries agreement between the Community and Côte d'Ivoire for a further year, although the period actually commenced last July – as Commissioner Nielson pointed out – before the Parliament had even been consulted. The Commissioner said that Members of Parliament would find that this was disagreeable, and that is indeed the case. Being bounced into these
again and again by the Commission is extremely disagreeable. Indeed in this case, payment to Côte d'Ivoire is due on 31 December 2003. So there is therefore a considerable need for urgency in settling this matter. It is regrettable that the Fisheries Committee was forced into this position once again. I trust, however, the Commission appreciates the efforts we have made to accelerate the process in order that this contract can be honoured in time.
This agreement will be the sixth successive protocol between the EU and Ivory Coast. We first entered into a fisheries partnership with them in 1990 and have continued on an amicable basis ever since. However, inevitably – as Commissioner Nielson said – the political instability in the region resulted in our inability to take up some of the demersal fishing opportunities which we had negotiated in 2002. However, as the situation stabilised, it was possible for this fishery to resume again.
Tuna fishing, which is the other major resource covered by this agreement, was never affected by the civil war and, in terms of the uptake of opportunities negotiated under the agreement, we have continued at a level of around 85%. As Commissioner Nielson pointed out, there are 71 licences available for tuna vessels, although as always in these partnership agreements, over 70% of the financial compensation goes to targeted actions ensuring the continuation of a sustainable fishery and underpinning conservation measures, scientific research and control and surveillance. These funds are closely monitored by the Commission to ensure compliance with the objectives of the protocol. In the absence of this agreement, we could not guarantee that a sustainable fishery would continue. Indeed we could see a complete free-for-all with IUU fishing causing the complete plunder of the stocks and the collapse of the fishery.
It is important for those who oppose the renewal of this contract to understand the implications of their opposition. Commissioner Nielson highlighted that there are three large tuna canneries in Abidjan, funded by EU investment. Indeed, Abidjan is the focus for much of the tuna landings in West Africa and if, as the Verts/ALE and ELDR Groups suggest, we pull out of this agreement, 5000 direct jobs – and up to 30 000 indirect jobs – would disappear. Such an outcome would have catastrophic consequences for the social situation in Côte d'Ivoire and would seriously destabilise the country, plunging it into further conflict. So, I appeal to the Verts/ALE and ELDR Groups to think again and withdraw their amendments which would only make a bad situation worse."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples