Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-307"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.20.3-307"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, first of all I would like to say that funding has in fact been increased under this instrument. This is due to a number of reasons: enlargement, new technologies, broader scope of data, the new control agencies and the establishment of the regional advisory councils. On the latter point, I wish to say, as I said before, that the Commission is willing to consider the funding of the regional advisory councils during the review to be undertaken after the third year of their operation.
With regard to the extent of the funds, were more funds to be made available the Commission would surely not complain. However, in reality we will hopefully have a 150% increase in control and enforcement, a 160% increase in data collection and scientific advice, a 110% increase in governance and a 120% increase in international relations. If all goes well, there will be an overall increase of 130% if one compares the 2000-2006 financial period and the 2007-2013 financial period.
If there is a reduction, we have a cushion to some extent, so we do not have to deduct from any one specific heading. If there is going to be a drastic cut, all headings will be affected linearly. We will know hopefully before the end of the week what the situation is going to be. So far, from the indications we have, the cuts envisaged under the financial perspective as regards fisheries are relatively small, especially in the second instrument, and hopefully it will stay that way.
On the international agreements, the Commission believes that the proposal strikes the balance between internal and external policies, between international agreements and conservation, control and governance. At this juncture I wish to highlight that the allocations to the various areas are only indicative and based on current forecasts. Adjustments for each programme will in any case be submitted and adopted every year in the annual budgetary procedure.
I would like to pick up on the point made by Mrs Attwooll with regard to Amendment 16. Since these are commercial relationships, the monies often go directly to the treasury budget as part of the budget of the state. However, we intend to strengthen our dialogue with the Commission’s development services, to enhance the effectiveness of these monies in these countries’ general development objectives, in particular in the fisheries sector.
With particular reference to the fisheries partnership agreements, I need to underline that each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds under the agreement, as well as on the use of the financial share foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, as I have said before, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and where appropriate will make the necessary adjustments.
With regard to the remarks made by Mr Clark, I cannot agree with his assertions. The lower stocks of fish are the result of year upon year of uncontrolled over-fishing and not of the common fisheries policy. That policy, through its measures, seeks to address the need for balance between the availability of stocks and the fleets that target them.
Finally, the point on coastal fisheries and small-scale fisheries is better addressed under the European Fisheries Fund, which will hopefully be adopted early in 2006."@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples