First of all, I should like to congratulate the Commissioner on the fact that he has succeeded in reaching an agreement within the framework of Gabon at a time when it is increasingly difficult to conclude fisheries agreements. This illustrates the fact that fisheries agreements and the European Union are a matter of particular concern. They are partly based on historic schemes, and they now offer not only financial compensation to the countries involved, but simultaneously provide very specific development aid in a large number of African countries. With regard to the Gabon agreement, the European Union has earmarked EUR 5 million for a four-year period; 30% of this is financial compensation and 70% is spent on education and structural aid for the coastal region. For the sake of clarity, this therefore shows that these agreements contribute greatly towards development cooperation with African countries. Incidentally, the amount in annual terms is 70% higher than the current agreement or the agreement that has just la d. This increase is partly due to the acquisition of additional fishing options in the 6 to 12-mile zone. And indeed, the question then arises – and this is also addressed to the Commissioner – to what extent the relevant fisheries organisations in Gabon are actually involved in this agreement. Gabon is required annually to submit a written justification for 70% of the amount. Fisheries account for 1.4% of Gabon’s gross national product. However, if we realise that two thirds of Gabon’s GNP originates from oil revenues, this means that the fishing industry is indeed an important industry for the country. Interestingly, only 70% of the catch capacity was used between 1998 and 2001. The Commissioner might be able to account for this. It is also striking that, with regard to coastal fishing in the true sense of the word, in other words, fishing within the 12-mile zone, only the capacity of ships has been laid down in the agreement, and not the tonnage quota. This is remarkable because, in the EU’s internal policy, we always talk about actual catch quotas and not about the capacity of the ships. Perhaps the Commissioner can also indicate that the extension of the agreement from a 6 to a 12-mile zone has no implications for Gabonese coastal fishing. At the moment, it is insufficiently clear what the actual costs and benefits of the agreement with Gabon will be, also for European fishermen. Although the European Commission tries hard to describe the previous agreement in its evaluation report, information about the cost-benefit ratio, the state of the fish stocks and the impact of the agreements on the regions in the EU merit further elucidation, in my view. Mr President, I have already indicated that I congratulate the Commissioner on this agreement and that fisheries agreements are of paramount importance to a number of coastal regions in the European Union. In that sense, this agreement buttresses the economy in those regions and also gives a structural impulse to the European fisheries industry, which is already under strain. This does not detract from the fact – and we cannot turn a blind eye to this – that these agreements meet with increasing criticism, inter alia from the World Wildlife Fund and other non-governmental organisations. In future discussions about fisheries agreements, we must underline more emphatically the importance of the social support base of these agreements, both in Africa and in Europe. It would be good if the Commission too were to stress that these agreements definitely boost development cooperation with a large number of African countries, for this has not yet struck home where many people are concerned. With regard to the report itself, I have indicated in a number of recommendations the points that require extra attention. Among the aspects to which I request that more attention be given are control measures, since the Gabonese Government is not sufficiently able to carry out the control tasks adequately, and information about how the money is actually spent and to what extent the coastal regions are actually strengthened. Regarding the implementation of this agreement, I would appreciate it if the evaluation of development measures were to be submitted to the Council and the European Parliament every two years. The amendments as adopted by the Committee on Fisheries receive my unqualified support. In fruitful cooperation with my own coordinator, Mr Farela, I have once again explained our true intentions in Amendment No 2. For that reason, I much prefer this amendment to Amendment No 9 tabled by the . This means that I would warmly recommend Amendment No 2, while I consider Amendment No 9 by the to be redundant. I should also like to thank the draftsmen of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on Development and Cooperation for the report and the information, and I would thank them for their input, since this too contributes to a broader support base for agreements of this kind.

Political group: PPE-DE