Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-13-Speech-4-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011213.6.4-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs McKenna, and the Committee on Fisheries and its chairman, Mr Varela, for having taken on such an important problem.
As for No 18, as I have already said, first we need a legal definition of flag-of-convenience states.
Finally, as regards No 21, the Commission has already submitted a proposal to the Member States suggesting that GSP status be withdrawn from Belize, Honduras and Equatorial Guinea because they have violated the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.
So you can see that we too are genuinely concerned. I should like to close by reiterating that the guidelines which you have submitted are extremely useful to us and will give us good food for thought when we come to reform the Common Fisheries Policy.
Like the European Parliament, the Commission is also extremely concerned about these international fishing pirates and the use of so-called flags of convenience. One thing is clear: anyone fishing under a flag of convenience is flouting maritime law and resolutions and the resolutions of regional fisheries organisations and ruining all our efforts at sustainable stock management in the process. Plus, it is not only unfair to honest fishermen, it is outright unfair competition and may indeed, as Mrs McKenna said, cause social problems.
The Commission has not been sitting on its hands. We have proposed an amendment to the FIFG regulation so as to prevent ships from transferring to flag-of-convenience states. This proposal is still before the Council, awaiting its decision.
Taking the FAO's international plan of action to combat pirate fisheries as our starting point, we also intend to work out a Community action plan to deal with these practices during the course of our reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. What will this entail? First, we need a definition of the concept of the actual link between ship and flag state and we then need to anchor this definition in international law.
Secondly, we need to draw up a list of the supervision and control duties incumbent upon each country for every ship berthed in its ports, in order to avoid so-called ports of convenience.
Thirdly, we need to strengthen the fisheries control regulation in general.
Now, if I may, I should like to comment briefly on your specific proposals. As far as No 6 is concerned, there is already a fleet register at Community level and we therefore feel this paragraph is superfluous. I fully share the concerns set out in No 9. No new Member State can accede unless it transposes the
into its national legislation. We also concur on Nos 15, 19 and 22. As you know, we are already in the process of drafting proposals for reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, which we shall submit to Parliament as soon as we receive your opinion on the Green Paper, taking account, needless to say, of the proposals on control policy which you have made in this context.
As for No 16, we too subscribe to the principle that we need a list of countries which offer flags of convenience. Finally, some of your demands on this point were met when we proposed that the FIFG rules be revised.
Parts of No 17 are already included in the control regulation. The Member States are required to keep a tally of imports in order to ensure that the catch quotas of the regional fisheries organisations are not exceeded."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples