Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-24-Speech-4-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050224.4.4-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of my fellow-Commissioner Mr Borg, who has unfortunately been unable to fly to Strasbourg due to the heavy snow.
I would underline the political importance of this proposal. Faced with an immense destruction of thousands of vessels, this proposal alone will certainly have only a limited impact. The expected availability of suitable vessels, taking into account the principles of adaptability and sustainability, will allow us to meet only a fraction of the needs with this short-term measure. Doubtless, this specific and focussed action will be followed by other actions in the humanitarian field to address the immense needs also of the fishing sector in the affected countries.
I can tell you that the Council has already discussed this proposal at a technical level and Member States' reactions are overall very encouraging. I also welcome the amendments that were tabled by Parliament, which clearly has this issue very much at heart. The Commission can accept a number of them. Regarding the other amendments, I note that in many instances they are noteworthy in the sense that they go far beyond what this regulation may provide for and so, very regretfully, they cannot be taken on board as part of this regulation. Their spirit, however, is undeniably driven by a clear commitment to alleviate the suffering brought on by the tsunami.
I hope that the European Parliament will give a positive opinion on this proposal to enable me to move this regulation forward in the Council next Monday, on 28 February. This will allow the Member States to make the necessary changes in their internal regulations so that, if the needs are indeed established by FAO, we will be able to act quickly and effectively.
Let me turn to the amendments. The Commission can accept Amendment No 1.
On Amendment No 2: the Commission is in agreement with the spirit of this amendment, but it is somewhat misplaced and inappropriate to have such a reference to education and training since this aspect is not within the scope with respect to third countries. However, I will be willing to make a declaration before adoption by Parliament later on, wherein the Commission will declare that appropriate training and educational measures towards fishermen in the countries hit by the tsunami should be encouraged and wherein the Commission will state its intention to provide an assessment of the needs, at the request of the third countries, through the expert facility which has been made available for the long-term rehabilitation of the fisheries sector in the affected countries.
On Amendments Nos 3, 18 and 19: again we agree with the spirit of these proposals, but the actions being proposed are provided for by the monitoring mechanism contemplated by the regulation. Providing for such detailed and specific amendments within the text of the regulation itself could, however, have the affect of making the regulation cumbersome and too difficult to implement. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no need for these specific amendments.
We can accept Amendments Nos 4 and 5.
On Amendment No 6: we have no problem with the substance and we are willing to look at this change with the Presidency and the Council and expect to be able to overcome legal and technical difficulties that may arise with introducing changes to a title at a late stage.
On Amendment No 7: there again we agree with the spirit, but we have difficulty in accepting the amendment because it goes beyond the scope of this regulation.
On Amendments Nos 8, 9, 11 and 21: again, we agree with the spirit, but we feel that this is not the place to address such wider issues relating to the humanitarian assistance programmes. What this regulation enables us to do is to take a very concrete and specific action within the fisheries sector and more specifically within the FIFG regulation. Other initiatives will follow, not only to meet the overall humanitarian needs but also for the fisheries sector, but unfortunately they cannot be addressed in this regulation.
Concerning the subject, I wish to thank Members of Parliament for accepting the urgency procedure, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries for their support and their efficiency in handling that matter.
On Amendments Nos 10 and 12: the coming into force of these amendments to Regulation 2792/99 cannot be made dependent to specific requests being made by affected countries. I wish to point out that this regulation guarantees the participation of the third countries and I refer honourable Members to Article 1 of the current regulation, which amends Article 7 of the basic regulation, and which states that our actions are to be in accordance with the third countries' request.
On Amendments Nos 13, 14 and 15: we agree with the spirit of these amendments and we will take them up with the Presidency and the Council to see how best they can be reflected in the regulation.
On Amendment No 16: the regulation already provides in a number of instances for the assurance that fishing activity will be carried out in a sustainable manner. We, therefore, feel that this amendment is already taken into account in the regulation.
We can accept Amendment No 17, but we would like to limit the scope of the action to small-scale fishing vessels, as defined in Article 3 of Council Regulation 2371/2002 (the CFP reform regulation).
On Amendment No 20: we feel that this point is sufficiently covered by the provision under which the vessels to be transferred should be for the benefit of the affected fishing communities, and so this amendment is not required.
On Amendment No 22: the Commission has difficulty accepting this amendment: whereas technically it may be sound, its scope clearly undermines the spirit with which the regulation is being adopted.
The tsunami disaster devastated the coastal areas of numerous Asian countries and, besides tourism, the fisheries and aquaculture sector of these countries was the most affected.
Parliament and the Council have already welcomed and encouraged the initiatives taken by the Commission, in particular the measures aimed at rebuilding the sector in the areas concerned.
This proposal is only a specific part of a whole package of rehabilitation and restructuring measures. It aims to create the legal framework to allow Community vessels receiving public aid for permanent cessation to be transferred to countries affected by the tsunami, rather than being scrapped or reassigned for non-profitable purposes other than fishing. The intention is to make fishing capacity available in order to allow for a quick return to the activities on which the livelihood of countless coastal communities is completely dependent.
We have taken particular care to ensure that the local needs are carefully assessed. In this respect, the role of FAO, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, is decisive for the implementation of the rebuilding efforts in the area. This is on the agenda for the next FAO meeting of fisheries ministers in Rome on 12 March.
Two main guiding principles have determined our approach in this proposal. Firstly, a strong commitment to ensure consistency with the general objectives of the common fisheries policy and promote sustainability of the fishing activities in the long term. To achieve those objectives, we have proposed technical assistance to make an immediate impact assessment and design of the rehabilitation and reconstruction requirements for the areas concerned.
In this respect, a monitoring system will be set up in order to avoid possible adverse effects on the local economy and to ensure that the vessels transferred meet the needs identified by FAO. In addition, we have also emphasised that the transfers must be in accordance with the third country’s requests and that they respect the local fishing traditions.
Secondly, the European Community must offer a mechanism making it possible to act swiftly, while establishing an effective monitoring and control system without imposing unnecessary administrative burdens. The present proposal respects these constraints. Indeed, the proposal will not require reprogramming in the Member States under the current structural regulation for the fisheries sector. It has the further advantage that there are no financial consequences for the Community budget."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples