kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we cannot forget that two thirds of the world's oceans are beyond national jurisdiction and that the control management and conservation of these areas today is largely lacking.
we need global databases of fish dna we need global electronic traceability systems and we need advanced police cooperation between states.
they have to become more of management and conservation authorities and less of exploitation clubs.
i believe this is an issue far too politically sensitive to be included in my report and therefore i recommend to delete those words from paragraphs twelve and.
in my report i point to a number of concrete actions that the eu must take.
it is estimated that illegal fishing accounts for between eleven and twenty six million tonnes of fish a year making illegal fishing the world's second largest fish producer in the world.
it is one of the major causes of loss of biodiversity on the planet today and the emptying of the world's oceans of its living creatures is also degrading marine ecosystems so the oceans to a lesser extent are capable of doing their job as carbon sinks absorbing co.
hide behind shell companies registered in tax havens operators that bribe and corrupt coastguards and customs officers operators that steal fish from sensitive unprotected areas and put the billion euro profit directly into their own pockets organised crime that now operate with a minimal
two we the eu have signed up to a lot of international obligations to eradicate hunger halt the loss of biodiversity and fight against climate change and fighting against the very concrete threats to the ocean that international illegal fishing represents is one of the most evident steps that the eu can take to try to achieve all of these objectives.
the eu last year put in place its new iuu and control regulations and this was indeed a major step forward in the fight against iuu globally.
they are not small. it threatens food security in developing countries but also for future generations.
risk of detection and sanction all over the world especially in developing countries' waters and in the high seas in international waters.
i would like to express my thanks to all the shadows of course and a last comment is about the amendment about the introduction of a common european coastguard dealing with migrants etc.
i am therefore very happy that the european parliament states the need to enlarge the regional fisheries organisations both extend their geographical extension but also their mandate.
but documents are not enough.
we cannot wait for the un to move we have to take unilateral actions in order to form alliances with the world's largest fish markets.
some of these fish perhaps is the result of fishing a little bit over the quota by basically legal operators that may stretch the rules which of course is not acceptable but a lot of that fish is also taken by large scale operators that premeditate and organise their crimes in a very skilled manner who deliberately hide between flags of convenience
one thousand nine hundred and ninety five so our increasing dependency on fish from the outside and with the eu fleet itself fishing all over the planet our own responsibility to see to it that this fish is not illegally or irresponsibly caught is very evident.
i am very much in favour of more cooperation between different coastguards and we also have the fisheries control agency in vigo which i think should be reinforced in their work so that is out of the question but i think that the european coastguard is going too far in this report.
and that we support the creation of a body possibly under the auspices of the un and that the rfmos should go from being exploitation clubs to actually management bodies of the world's oceans.
as mrs rohde said we need global solutions and i think we need global institutions perhaps to tackle this problem and given the challenges of a shrinking planet we need to think boldly and very urgently as well. so thank you colleagues. thank you mr president.
i am extremely proud that this parliament would endorse the notions that also are included in this report the creation of a global body to fill the void that is actually right now very very evident in this world and that is the governance of our world's oceans and the international waters
as to combating illegal fishing globally the eu's discard policy is the greatest illegal fishing scandal of all!
to preserve fish stocks member states must be responsible for their own fishing waters up to the two hundred mile limit or the median line.
norway does just that.
bilateral arrangements would be up to them and they would have to protect their own fish stocks in their own interests under their laws and their enforcement.
turning to the question of combating illegal fishing on a global level i will again highlight a problem on the eu's doorstep;
two thousand and eleven the faroe islands have issued mackerel licences to a number of third country vessels some of which are blacklisted by the north east atlantic fisheries commission.
last week i presented the commission with details of an innovative project being launched by marine scientists in northern ireland who are about to begin work on an ecosystem approach to management within the irish sea.
however in the meantime annual decisions will soon be made that will have far reaching consequences for our fishermen.
the development of an integrated maritime policy is sensible but will take time and in the meantime we risk ignoring the problems that are impacting upon my constituents and our seas today.
that has to be recognised.
everything else comes under the competence of national governments.
let me start by giving you some clarification on recreational fisheries.
so we have done a lot of work. referring to other countries and our cooperation i would like also to mention that since july two thousand and eleven we have gone through one hundred and twenty procedures of requests to flag states because their vessels
so we are improving here and not only on paper as somebody said.
for example you have mentioned our obligation to be responsible in our waters. well we have been responsible.
the report calls for an end to flags of convenience.
the commission will decide by the end of two thousand and twelve whether recreational fishing can be regarded as illegal unreported and unregulated fishing. recreational anglers catch a minuscule percentage of the total catch but most important of all recreational anglers are much more likely to return immature fish safely to the sea.
it has a direct economic impact on countries especially developing countries and these countries are losing the value of the catches that could be taken by local fishermen if iuu fishing was not taking place.
this fishing is facilitated by a lack of access to information about vessel names and the identity of their owners.
we must ensure member states fully enforce rules obliging ships to carry this information.
criminal organisations have been dipping their feet into the world of this criminal activity and they have a strong economic incentive.
many species of fish particularly those that have been over exploited are in short supply and are therefore of high value.
we have to behave the same way inside and outside eu waters otherwise we cannot be reliable. i think two issues are very important here better governance and transparency.
we must also solve the problem of subsidies. we need to increase cooperation among market states develop new tools at international level and pursue the development of a global catch documentation system.
i would like to highlight two issues;
firstly on cooperation among market states i have already taken the first step.
we have signed the joint statement with the united states pledging bilateral cooperation to combat illegal fisheries.
first conditionality.
no subsidy can be granted to operators involved in illegal fishing.
second financial correction.
countries need to cooperate with each other in investigations proceedings and ultimately prosecutions if we want to actively combat these pirate' actions. as a final point the eu as the biggest player in this market has a moral obligation to take the lead in this fight.
anna was killed eleven weeks ago whilst helping to evacuate civilians.
madam president regarding turkey's journey on the european path it's important to talk about ongoing turkish attacks on the kurds including recent attacks on the peaceful citizens of afrin which have resulted in mass displacement and many deaths.
i have met with bereaved kurdish families and i know that turkey frequently refuses to allow them to give the victims a proper burial.
one body that still lies under the rubble is that of anna campbell a young fairminded british woman who was moved to join the kurdish women's protection unit last year.
i therefore urge the high representative to take diplomatic action to help anna's family and demand an end to the vicious turkish attacks on peaceful kurds.
i visited kurdistan many times recently with the women's delegation for peace in northern syria.
this involves the provision of effective tools for modern border surveillance systems.
we must use these funds in the most effective way.
nevertheless it has also been rightly pointed out that there is much room for improvement.
for example in the area of the judiciary we have halted several projects with the council of judges and prosecutors due to serious concerns about the independence of that body.
we look forward to the formal endorsement of this proposal by the member states in the ipa committee in july.
we are focusing more on conditionality in our approach.
as was highlighted in the recent audit report of ipa funding to turkey there are mechanisms such as the recourse to greater oversight of the distribution of funds that are currently under used.
madam president turkey's prospects of joining the eu anytime soon now seem all but impossible.
nevertheless turkey remains an important partner and despite some calls in certain quarters to do away with ipa funding altogether i believe that this would be a step too far for now.
so i sincerely hope that such mechanisms will be used in future to avoid any potential alleged misuse of ipa monies by turkey because that is a very serious allegation indeed.
despite the difficulties in the implementation of ipa in turkey it is indisputable that without this programme for our partners it would be more difficult to fulfil eu membership obligations and support the political reforms economic social and territorial development.
the court of auditors and our colleague mentioned this drew similar conclusions in its may report and i am actually still waiting for answers to my written questions about this report.
now if confirmed eu funds would have been illegally used and the eu could be indirectly complicit in human rights violations.
it took amendments from us in this house to the two thousand and seventeen budget to make sure that funds to turkey were decreased as a direct response to the significant backsliding of the rule of law and democracy.
so i am interested to learn from the commission how much money the eu has from two thousand and fourteen until today provided to turkey not just under ipa ii but basically broadly during those years. this would provide important context to the amount of money we spent.
so we need to learn how funds will be governed and how parliament can apply its scrutiny.
what is also clear is that there is a lack of transparency monitoring and clarity on objectives when we look at funding.
freezing and redirecting funds should be a proper policy option.
because what we know is that the commission has often been hesitant to use conditionality.
we certainly will not want to see a repetition of the statements on migration and the hastily assembled trust funds over which this scrutiny is lacking.
the commissioner is proposing new plans for eu pre accession funding on fourteen june as part of the broader budget package and of course we are happy in this house to push for making eu spending more transparent accountable and effective.
so has an independent investigation into these allegations been undertaken and if confirmed what will be the consequences?
no one seems to know exactly how much money is spent where why and to what effect.
secondly we requested this debate because it was reported that the turkish military has used eu funded cobra vehicles to shoot at and forcefully push syrian refugees back across the border.
but i just want to make clear that we have here an oral question asking the commission about investigating its responsibility about how eu financed money was spent in turkey.
i just hope that in this debate we don't turn it into a general debate on turkey but we ask the commission to answer specifically the various serious allegations that are in the media and reported by human rights organisations.
administration to fulfil all the commitments because if they do not do so i will not hesitate to suspend the shield. but this time has not yet come.
the privacy shield includes sanctions to effectively deal with violations by participating companies including if necessary their removal from the privacy shield list which will have a deterrent effect for participant companies.
significantly it enables european smes to work with their us trade partners without cumbersome negotiations on data transfer for their businesses. the privacy shield cuts administrative burdens hugely for nearly three zero companies already certified. as ppe negotiator on the general data protection regulation for the committee on industry research and energy i am very conscious of the seriousness of protecting citizens' personal data
after all it took a long time to get safe harbour replaced by the privacy shield.
efforts should be focused on improved monitoring of compliance within the framework rather than suspending the deal altogether and definitely we should try that before we talk about suspension.
therefore i do not agree with those who say that we should suspend the privacy shield.
we also expect that the united states authorities fully concentrate on the day to day oversight of the privacy shield.
in comparison these will be costlier in particular for smaller companies and start ups.
thanks to stricter conditions for the sharing of personal data with third parties and more stringent rules on data retention the data of our citizens is now better protected when it is transferred to the united states.
at the same time we fully share the position of parliament that there are a number of outstanding issues which have to be addressed.
i have already made clear to my counterparts in the united states that i want the open issues to be resolved by the second annual review which will be kicked off by commerce secretary wilbur ross and myself in brussels on eighteen october.
let me also stress that the data protection supervisory authorities have been and will be strongly associated with the work of the commission including with the second annual review.
i will not simply repeat the same in the second annual review.
this is more than during the first ten years of the safe harbour framework's existence.
in the wake of the recent facebook cambridge analytica scandal this motion for a resolution confirms that privacy matters are taken very seriously in europe.
the framework has been operational for almost two years and as required we are continuously monitoring its functioning.
but at this stage a suspension is not warranted.
i very much welcome parliament's insistence on the need for regular and proactive compliance monitoring.
it is of crucial importance that these rules are also properly enforced. i therefore welcome that the united states federal trade commission has immediately opened an investigation in the facebook cambridge analytica case and that it is also assessing whether these companies violated their obligations under the privacy shield. this investigation will certainly be a test case for the enforcement action of the united states authorities.
let me also make it very clear that the commission will not hesitate to act upon its obligations and to make use of its power to suspend the privacy shield.
i count on your support so that ahead of the second annual review we can transmit a strong eu message of urgency to the united states and i look forward to hearing your views on this important topic.
i expect the united states to stick to its commitments including on finding a permanent solution on the ombudsperson.
almost four zero companies from europe and the united states have signed up to the shield.
moreover a sudden suspension would affect all those individuals in the eu whose personal data would no longer benefit from the additional protections of the privacy shield.
our us counterparts will need to provide answers to the challenges that we identified at last year's annual review.
this testifies to a large usefulness of the shield but we are all here fully aware that the functioning of the shield could be and should be improved.
i can only agree with parliament's concerns in this regard as the commission has highlighted on previous occasions.
all the elements on which our adequacy finding was based have remained in place since the new us administration took office and we have seen some improvements and new appointments in the relevant bodies and authorities. we also have to keep in mind that without the privacy shield framework data transfers would predominantly take place on the basis of contractual safeguards between eu and us companies.
it provides the adequate level of protection required by eu data protection law and the eu charter and even though the privacy shield predates the entry into application of the eu's new rules the general data protection regulation we negotiated the shield with the new standards in mind. the facebook cambridge analytica scandal took place before the shield existed and it is the shield that has introduced stricter rules for exactly those practices that seem to be at the heart of this scandal.
they are doing our homework and we are doing a disservice to our citizens. so let's get serious about data protection.
we are fooling our citizens here because what we're talking about is not the presumption of compliance it's the pretence of compliance.
the first is that we should not be talking here about a resolution we should be talking to the americans and telling them to get their act together and implement right now.
if they really want to and this is america they can do anything surely they can implement the privacy shield?
this is not a matter of there being some technical problems they just don't want to implement.
they are not implementing. this is not like in school where you also get points for the efforts that you make.
if they are not compliant then indeed the commission should suspend the privacy shield.
you have to be compliant full stop.
the point is that they have not been compliant for the past nearly two years.
we are talking about a kind of agreement here in which the usa is non compliant.
the political will is not there. if they really do want to implement then they can follow our resolution that says comply by one september'. they have another two months what's the problem?
and if they cannot do that in two months what makes us believe they can do it in three months or in a year?
the second thing that needs to be done is that we have to stop making bad laws and bad agreements that do not comply with the treaties and with eu law and which every single time have to be thrown out by the court of justice.
if anybody wants to protect businesses and they have a right to legal protection as well then two things should happen.
that means individuals have easily accessible redress mechanisms when they fear their data is not being treated properly. it makes access to us markets simpler and easier for our smes.
it is an indispensable tool that ensures that data can flow between the eu and the us without jeopardising the standard of protections that apply.
now there are of course challenges with enforcement.
eu data protection law itself is complex and trying to marry that with the obligations of a third country is not always easy but this is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater especially as many eu governments themselves are struggling to implement the general data protection regulation gdpr.
the focus should be on how we improve enforcement and there are some very useful suggestions in this resolution that we support.
however proposing to suspend the shield is irresponsible and driven by the false assumption that the us is some sort of regulatory wild west which it clearly isn't.
there are no grounds to judge the us as noncompliant as the commission has just said.
such a proposal would hurt europeans.
it risks going back to a contractual system with fewer protections less clarity for consumers who want to apply their rights and more onerous paperwork and legal fees for our smes.
the shield deserves our full scrutiny and inspection but there is a big difference between scrutiny and sabotage.
as such i cringe at proposals to include the eu flag on sportsmen's national shirts.
hosting two world class sporting events in the next five years is good news not only for london and the uk but also for europe.
i hope other member states will also have enough pride in their countries to feel the same way.
madam president i would like to congratulate my home constituency of london on having been selected to host the two thousand and seventeen world athletics championships.
we look forward to hosting both events and invite you to join us in london.
when the british athletes proudly mount the podium to receive their gold medals the only flag i want to see is the union jack.
madam president in recent months england has seen a series of despicable crimes memorial plaques recording the names of the heroic dead of two world wars are being systematically stolen for their scrap metal value.
decent english people wonder how these revered monuments which have stood safely in cities towns and villages for generations have become the targets for thieves.
today's daily express reports that the police believe that these crimes are predominantly carried out by romanian gangs.
we do not just get the decent honest hard working migrants that we might choose.
we are forced to take the lowest forms of criminal life merely because they are eu citizens.
what more revolting proof of that could there be than the melting down for scrap of the monuments to those who gave their lives so we could be free.
this could of course have had serious consequences. i am therefore pleased that the commission is now looking at new rules for these agencies.
however the eu seems to be going in the opposite direction. first of all we had a greek prime minister promising his people a referendum on the severe economic measures imposed on his country.
now we have the grotesque sight of an unelected person a former eu commissioner mario monti who has not been elected to anything in his life given a lifetime seat and appointed italian prime minister.
unelected government by technocrats?
you no longer trust the people of europe for you know they do not trust you and they have seen through this scam.
the arab spring has given way to a nasty bitter eu winter.
on top of this the guidelines on the two thousand and fourteen budget refer to extra payments that need to be covered for past and current years with the amounts remaining totally unclear.
it is time for parliament and the council to call on the commission to assume its responsibility on the budget and its implementation by providing reliable accounting information as to where and when eu taxpayers' money is being spent.
mr president i find it ludicrous that this house is trying to push ahead on the negotiation of the two thousand and fourteen budget on the one hand while on the other it refuses to back the agreement made by heads of state on the seven year budget starting next year.
so every time a new country goes in the upper limit of meps keeps rising.
a cynic might almost think that that was the primary purpose of eu elections.
let me end with a very practical and positive contribution.