Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.3.4-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, firstly I would like to thank Mr Cunha for his excellent report and express my appreciation for the resolution on the annual Commission report on the Multiannual Guidance Programmes. I would like to say that both this report, and the previous resolution prepared by Mr Cunha on compliance with the multiannual programmes in previous years, have been of great benefit to the Commission in drawing up new regulations, specifically the application of the FIFG funds, approved for the next few years.
With regard to the controversial proposal contained in paragraph 6, I have to say that it raises certain problems from a legal point of view. It is true that, being a purely temporary suspension, it may perhaps be considered. However, there are other types of system and the Council has not wanted to adopt them either. Frankly, we doubt that the Council will change its mind and accept a proposal of this type. If it changes its position, these or other proposals will be welcome. Proposals would be presented because the Commission has already done so and it has been the Council which has rejected them.
We clearly have to remember that penalties, in the end, often harm the producers themselves. If we draw a parallel between agriculture and fisheries – which we obviously can – certain types of penalties end up affecting farmers, whose income is eventually reduced. The reduction of a fleet in a particular country obviously means a sacrifice on the part of seafaring and coastal populations, who are affected by that reduction. Certain types of activity have social effects and it therefore falls to the Member States – and the Community, where appropriate – to adopt supplementary measures to deal with these effects.
It is in terms of compliance with the MAGPs and, above all, fishing quotas, and the rational management of fishing resources, that we really hold the future of the European fishing industry in our hands.
I would like to thank and congratulate Mr Cunha once again on his report, and I repeat that, with regard to compliance and penalties, the Commission has made positive proposals while others have not wanted them and, of course, the Commission will continue to try to bring about greater compliance with all the obligations on the part of all Member States.
The Commission is in complete agreement with Mr Cunha and other speakers with regard to the importance of the Multiannual Guidance Programmes in terms of safeguarding the future of the Community fishing fleets. Nevertheless, I would like to highlight certain issues.
Firstly, with regard to the requirements in terms of measurement – one of the key issues when ascertaining actual compliance with the MAGPs by the different Member States – although it is true that we have still not achieved total harmonisation of the units of measurement on passing from one system to another, the Commission is working on it and has implemented different initiatives. Amongst other initiatives, it has requested an exhaustive report from an external body with expertise in this area
which has visited the competent authorities in the different States in order to study appropriate ways to harmonise these measurements.
On the basis of this report, as well as reports and other works carried out by the Community’s own inspectors, the Commission will draw up, as necessary, a proposed review of the regulation on measurement, that is to say, a proposed review of the transfer from MAGP III to MAGP IV.
I would also like to add that the Commission is collaborating with the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) in order to determine how to also establish a common regulation for the measurement of engine power, another key element in ascertaining the capacity of fishing capability of each of the respective fleets.
Having studied how to improve both the definition of the MAGP and the measurements regarding the capacities of each fleet, we come to the crux of the matter: control of the degree of compliance with the multiannual programmes and control of the compliance with what the Council agrees on the proposal of the Commission. The Commission is not satisfied with the way this question is developing and, although advances have been made, not everything that the Commission proposed at the time has been done.
Advances have been made insofar as the suspension of public aid is an effective instrument, at least with regard to a certain Member State, which has changed its attitude and which has begun to provide more information. Therefore, progress is being made in terms of greater compliance with the multiannual programme.
The new structural policy on the fishing industry for 2000-2006 clearly includes provisions in the field of penalties which will provide the Commission – once and for all – with the means to make stricter demands with regard to compliance with the objectives of the different MAGPs on the part of the Member States.
Please allow me to point out, to those of you who have expressed dissatisfaction on the grounds that the penalties approved are insufficient, that this has not been due to a lack of will on the part of the Commission. The Commission had proposed additional penalties and the Council rejected them. These included additional penalties such as denying the opportunity to use new fishing grounds in third countries, financed by means of Community funds, being imposed on countries who do not fully comply with the MAGPs. This measure, which would have been very effective, was rejected by the Council. Therefore, it is not the Commission which does not want to make provision for more effective methods of achieving greater compliance, rather the Council. Of course, the Commission is prepared to continue moving forward on this issue and what is required is a similar resolve on the part of the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Seafish Industries Authorities,"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples