Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-297"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.20.3-297"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples