Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.11.2-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank you warmly, Mrs Langenhagen, for your excellent report on the conclusion of the Fourth Protocol to the Fisheries Agreement between the Community and Greenland. I am also pleased that you, as rapporteur, recommend approval of the proposal.
Amendment No 10 would result in 100% of the costs of the agreement being taken on by the fishermen, and this has never before been the case with any previous agreement. Such a proposal also raises considerable legal and practical problems and I think that it is unacceptable for this reason.
Among other things, the Fourth Protocol, which was initialled on 13 September 2000 in Copenhagen, creates a basis for re-assessing the relationship between the Community and Greenland. The most important measure for this re-assessment is described in Article 14 of the Protocol. An interdepartmental working group of the Commission will review measures that are intended to bring more transparency and accountability into relations with Greenland. This review will take place by 30 June 2003 at the latest.
The objective of this mid-term review is to create a new framework for future cooperation between the Community and Greenland. Parliament will of course be involved in drafting such an agreement in accordance with the provisions in force.
What are the most important aspects of the Fourth Protocol? First of all let us consider catch quotas. These have been reduced by comparison to the Third Protocol in order to set catch possibilities that are also actually available. This applies especially to cod, which has been reduced from 31 000 tonnes to 2 000 tonnes; redfish has been reduced from 52 000 to 31 000 tonnes and roundnose grenadier has been reduced from 8 000 to 3 350 tonnes. A new article has been included with the aim of intensifying cooperation within the framework of regional fisheries organisations, especially with regard to implementation of monitoring and control regulations and in the field of research. Financial compensation has been set at EUR 42.8 million, taking into account the desire of both parties for close and stable relations and with due consideration for the development requirements of Greenland and for inflation.
I would like to emphasise that the Commission supports the rationale behind most of the proposed amendments, and will cooperate constructively with Parliament on these issues.
For formal reasons the Commission must nevertheless distance itself from the amendments in their present form. Concerning Amendments Nos 1 and 2, the Commission supports Parliament’s wish to be informed appropriately, in advance, about budgetary issues or other issues connected with the implementation of the Protocol. However, the Commission already makes relevant data available in accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement. For this reason the Commission considers the proposal to be unnecessary.
As regards Amendment No 3, the opinion of the Commission here too is that the amendment is largely covered by Interinstitutional Agreements, especially the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000. The cost-benefit analysis referred to is part of the information provided to Parliament prior to the renewal of a Protocol. The Commission does not feel that annual cost-benefit analysis would be very useful. The Commission therefore cannot accept this proposal either. The Commission rejects Amendment No 4 on principle because it contradicts current practice with regard to Protocols to Fisheries Agreements and affects the Commission's powers of negotiation. As the Protocol is an annex to the framework agreement, no new mandate is required to renew it. It goes without saying, of course, that the Commission, as chief negotiator, has responsibility for ensuring that the guidelines laid down by the Council for the negotiations are adhered to.
In the case of the Fourth Protocol with Greenland the Commission proposed guidelines for the negotiations – which were approved by the Council – because it wanted to introduce several far-reaching changes compared to the previous Protocol, especially the provision relating to a mid-term review. As far as the latter is concerned, too, the Commission will make an effort to inform Parliament, and especially the Committee on Fisheries, in the appropriate manner. Amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7 are not acceptable because they interfere with the authority of the Commission.
The Commission agrees with the content of Amendment No 8, although it would forestall the mid-term review, and that does not seem sensible. The Commission cannot agree with Amendments Nos 9 and 10 because they do not correspond to some of the principles of the Common Fisheries Policy. Amendment No 9 fails to take into account the principle of relative stability, which assures certain Member States that they will have certain catch quotas in Greenlandic waters too. I would like to add here that the Commission constantly encourages Member States to utilise their fishing rights to the greatest extent possible and also always makes a point of reminding Member States of the possibilities of quota exchange."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples