Mr President, at the moment Mr Fischler is in the Committee on Fisheries, which was scheduled to finish working at 9 p.m. However, it was very important that he spoke to us there about the planned reform. In this respect I appreciate why he is not yet here at the moment, and in any case he knows us all quite well already. This is indeed a tricky business: Greenland lies only a few kilometres off the coast of Canada, while it is more than four hours' flight from Copenhagen but is nevertheless a part of Denmark. Denmark, meanwhile, is a Member of the European Union, while Greenland withdrew from the EU more than 15 years ago following a referendum. Have no fear, I do not intend to give an impassioned speech in favour of Greenland returning to the EU, although I am sure that would be an interesting debate. I simply want to clarify how difficult the situation before us actually is. Since Greenland withdrew from the EU in 1985 it has had Fisheries Agreements with the Community. These were necessary in order to regulate fishing in Greenlandic waters and set catch quotas for European fishing boats. The Third Protocol to the Fisheries Agreement expired on 31 December 2000 and was replaced by a new one that came into force on 1 January 2001. Yes, a Fourth Protocol has now been in operation since January 2001. If one looks at today's date then one can see that we in Parliament are trailing behind by some months. However – and this should be emphasised again in the context of the present debate – the reason for this delay does not lie with Parliament! The signing of the Protocol went ahead in September 2000. However, the Commission did not submit the Protocol for Parliament’s approval until the end of December 2000, in other words shortly before it was officially due to come into force. If we want to take our role seriously, and be taken seriously, as the body responsible for budgetary matters, then this way of handling procedures on the part of the Commission is unacceptable. In the interests of ensuring good relations between the Commission and the EP there is an agreement to allow Parliament a period of six months between submission and entering into force to afford it time to make comments. And Greenland too, incidentally, which had to wait for four months in vain for payments, was not best pleased – to put it mildly – with the behaviour of the Commission. The advance payment that the Commission then initiated off its own bat in mid-April did little to change that. In the case of future Agreements the Commission should pay more attention to the deadlines and arrangements in order to avoid irritations of this sort, which give rise to ill feeling between institutions and damage the international standing of the EU. Why do we need a Protocol of this sort at all, when after all it costs the EU EUR 42.8 million per year? On the one hand, of course, it directly benefits EU fishermen who lay their nets in Greenland's waters. These fishing possibilities are irreplaceable. On the other hand, the Agreement with Greenland is of tremendous importance as regards the Fisheries Agreements with other nations such as Norway or Iceland, as it is through the exchange of fishing quotas that the Agreements with Norway or Iceland are possible in the first place. In the Fourth Protocol the fishing quotas have at last been reduced to a realistic level. Conservation of stocks and sustainable management were the deciding factors in setting the quotas. And this is a good thing, as we do not want to fish to the point where there is nothing left to catch. We want to leave our children and grandchildren the chance of making a living from fishing. One question, if not the most important question, in the case of Greenland will be: will cod recover? Despite some signals to this effect, there are still no positive, conclusive findings from fishermen or the scientific community. This is of course bound up with the problem of what we so appositely call ‘paper fish’. What use is it to our fishermen, after all, if on paper they are allowed to catch so many tonnes of fish but the fish is simply not there? We need more realism here. This includes the possibility of fishing other species, as is expressly provided under the new Protocol, and also annual review and confirmation of quotas and support for joint venture projects, which has so far been lacking. We need a realistic fisheries policy with Greenland. I therefore advocate undertaking a cost-benefit analysis before the renewal of the Protocol and a review at mid-term with the active involvement of Parliament. In doing this, one issue will be how to separate financial compensation for purely fishing possibilities from the total contribution, which also covers development projects. As you see, there is still a great deal to be done. I hope that the proposals for amendments we have put before you will pass through Parliament successfully. If relative stability is to be brought about, however, I would ask you to reject this motion. We are, however, in the process of elaborating a compromise to show how unanimous we are in our efforts with regard to the subject of fisheries.

Political group: PPE-DE