Tilltänkte kommissionären för utvecklingsfrågor Andris Piebalgs frågades ut av parlamentet i går, jag envisades med att ställa frågor om EU:s fiskeriavtal med tredje världen. Piebalgs hävdade att fiskeriavtalen har en utvecklingsdel som hjälper dessa länder, och han betonade att de är “partnerskapsavtal”. Jag fick möjlighet att ställa en tredje fråga om samstämmigheten mellan fiskeripolitik och biståndspolitik ( så kallad policy coherence) och då kom detta överraskande svar som i princip borde sätta stopp för fiskeriavtalen i deras nuvarande form:
Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE). – About policy coherence – you mentioned fisheries and you referred to ‘partnership agreements’ – do you think it is right to give sectoral support to local fisheries in Africa only if the EU is allowed to fish in their waters?
1-092
EN
Andris Piebalgs, Commissioner-designate. - On sectoral support: I need to discuss this issue with my colleague, because I think a fisheries support agreement is in a way very particular, because I think it is a transitional arrangement, because we have an interest, basically, in these countries having competitive fisheries, because that means that, at the end of the day, we will need to provide less development aid – perhaps none at all.
So we have a lot of interest and, as far as connecting support with this type of agreement is concerned, I am not aware that it is an issue. I would say it is not the case. I hope it is not the case, because it is a completely different issue. One is that we pay for the right to fish. The other issue is completely independent: it is to support the local fisheries. Why should it be linked? I do not see any necessity for linking, but I will check the details because whether you have an agreement or if you do not have agreement should not be a precondition for support, because the payment that we pay to a fisheries partnership is completely different. We have a chance to catch fish and we get jobs for our fishermen.