Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-03-07-Speech-1-104-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-03-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU-Mauritania Fisheries Partnership Agreement (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110307.19.1-104-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-03-07-Speech-1-105-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Carl Haglund2
lpv:spokenAs	member; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2009-07-20--2012-07-04)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2012-07-04)3 substitute; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 vice-chair; PECH (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (2009-10-08--2011-07-31)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (2009-07-14--2012-07-04)3 member; Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (2010-06-17--2011-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her introduction. I am one of those who had the privilege of visiting Mauritania at the end of last year to assess how the current agreement had been working. In all honesty, I have to say that the agreement and its implementation leave rather a lot to be desired. In particular, our insight into where taxpayers’ money is going is anything but good. We must remember that we put around EUR 75 million into this agreement every year, which means that a quarter of Mauritania’s state budget is financed by our Community fisheries funding. In this respect, this is quite an important agreement, both for us and also for the country in question. We must also remember that, as recently as 2007, the European Commission itself proposed that this agreement should be discontinued because it did not provide the desired added value for Europe that an agreement ought to provide. Evidently, the winds have changed and it may be that there is a demand for an agreement of this kind. However, if this is the case, we should start to consider how this money is used and what added value we obtain. We must remember that one part of this agreement also stipulates that the money is to be used to promote local fisheries. We have to say that our experience during our visit indicates that the local fishermen have not seen much of the approximately EUR 18 million that ought to be pumped into the local fisheries annually from the money we use down there. In that respect, too, renewal of the agreement requires very careful evaluation and the agreement also needs to be redrafted. Finally, as has already been mentioned here, we in the European Parliament have a responsibility for these issues, as we have to give our consent to all these agreements. This places us under an obligation, also as a decision maker, to familiarise ourselves with these issues. Based on the information that we have available right now, it seems to be rather difficult to take a positive view of the renewal of such an agreement. We therefore have a great deal to do in this regard in cooperation with the Commission with an eye to the future."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph