Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-324"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.22.3-324"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, before I outline the Commission’s position on this dossier let me first extend my gratitude to the Committee on Fisheries, and especially to its Chairman and rapporteur Mr Morillon for his excellent work carried out within the very tight deadlines.
On Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal state, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is therefore the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Protocol. Therefore I am unable to accept this amendment.
As regards Amendments 3 and 5, the Commission is entirely in agreement with their spirit. However, the Commission already complies with the transmission of this kind of information, in line with both the current interinstitutional arrangements and in particular with the framework agreement between the Commission and the European Parliament. The Commission therefore considers that these amendments are not really necessary, if my information is right.
Amendment 4 cannot be accepted by the Commission. May I recall the basic Community provisions concerning the mandate of the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the Community. The Council has authorised the Commission to negotiate fisheries arrangements between the Community and the Seychelles. Against this background, the periodic renewal does not require a new mandate each time. There is no need for a new mandate, given that the existing mandate covers these negotiations’ objectives.
On Amendment 6, the new Protocol does not contain any targeted measures but a support to the Seychelles fisheries policy – Article 7 of the Protocol –promoting responsible fishing and sustainable fisheries in Seychelles waters. We fully share the concern to keep the EP informed on the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. However, the Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. Therefore the Commission considers that this amendment is not really necessary.
As you are all aware, the Commission procedures have delayed the finalisation of this proposal. The Commission is endeavouring to prevent similar delays occurring in the future. We are currently undertaking internal consultations to see how best to overcome the delays which result in very short timeframes being given to the European Parliament to consider the reports. I hope to be able to report to the Committee on Fisheries on possible solutions in the near future. In the meantime I want to apologise to the rapporteur for the very tight deadlines he had to work within, and I personally commit myself to discuss with him and to search for and find a solution with regard to the future modus operandi.
On this dossier I would like to say that we informed the Seychelles authorities of the delay in the adoption procedure at an early stage. The Seychelles authorities have shown great understanding.
As the honourable Members are aware, the Community has a long-standing relation with the Seychelles in the fisheries area. The first fisheries agreement with the country dates back to 1985 and this is one of the most important tuna agreements in financial terms. It is also the cornerstone of the network of our tuna agreements in the Indian Ocean.
This new Protocol is the first one that fully reflects the new partnership approach. Both parties subscribe to a political dialogue on fisheries issues and in particular the fisheries sector policy defined by the Government of the Seychelles. More than one third of the financial contribution has been earmarked in support of the Seychelles fisheries policy.
In line with this desire, the Commission has had a joint committee meeting in April and two technical meetings in July and September 2005 with the Seychelles authorities in order to start the political dialogue on the establishment of a multiannual sector programme to support the development of responsible fisheries in the Seychelles. This work includes the establishment of annual and multiannual objectives, the distribution of a part of the financial compensation, the aims to be attained and criteria and procedures to be followed, in order to allow for an evaluation of the yearly results obtained in accordance with Article 7 of the Protocol. In this manner, both parties are firmly committed to responsible fishing and sustainable fisheries in the Seychelles waters.
The new Protocol covers a six-year period from 18 January 2005 to 17 January 2011. It grants fishing opportunities for 40 tuna seiners and 12 surface longliners and foresees a financial contribution of EUR 4 125 000 per year. The Protocol is of mutual benefit to both parties.
I shall now turn to the amendments. On Amendment 1 we fully share Parliament’s concern and appreciate the speedy procedure undertaken notwithstanding the short time-frames given to them. As I said before, the Commission informed the Seychelles authorities of this delay at an early stage. The Seychelles authorities have shown great understanding and have accepted to receive the payment of the financial compensation for the first year of the agreement at a later date.
As I have stated above, the delays in the transmission result mainly from the nature of negotiations, but also because of the length of time involved in internal procedures. In view of this and of my commitment to find a solution, I seek the rapporteur’s understanding of our inability to accept this amendment."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples