Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-09-Speech-3-302"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080409.28.3-302"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, first of all allow me to thank the rapporteur for his work on this report. Since the adoption of the Council Regulation on fisheries outside community waters in 1994, many conditions have changed and international obligations have increased for the authorisation of Community vessels outside Community waters.
Equally, I cannot accept Amendments 20 to 24, since the scope of the proposal is to cover all agreements and not just third-country agreements, as I said at the outset. In addition, the reallocation of unused fishing opportunities is necessary in order to ensure the best possible utilisation of the fishing possibilities under the agreement. Such reallocation is best dealt with in the context of the issuing and renewal of licences.
Finally, I would like to stress that this proposal is part of a package containing the proposal on combating IIU fishing, as well as the revision of the Control Regulation to follow later this year. As referred to by the Committee on Fisheries, the Commission will, while keeping transparency and simplification in mind, aim to harmonise these proposals and avoid any overlap between them.
This proposal has, therefore, been put forward as part of the 2006-2008 Action Plan for simplifying and improving the common fisheries policy. The aims of the proposal reflect that spirit by integrating existing legislation into one regulation, while ensuring that the rules applying to Community vessels in third-country waters are applied equally to third-country vessels in Community waters.
Many provisions are unchanged regarding the current system of issuing fishing authorisations. The major new points of the proposal can be summarised as follows. Firstly, all fisheries agreements under which Community vessels fish are included in the scope of the proposal, those being fisheries partnership agreements, bilateral fisheries agreements, agreements in the context of regional fisheries management organisations and private agreements. This wide scope is essential, as all flag states under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are responsible for the vessels flying their flags. Consequently, vessels fishing under all kinds of agreements should be included.
Secondly, a mechanism to reallocate under-utilised fishing opportunities has been introduced in order to optimise the utilisation of fishing opportunities under the fisheries agreements. This point was raised during the discussions on most fisheries partnership agreements and is now integrated into each of them in order to increase the value for money under each agreement.
As a last point, I would like to mention the proposed provisional application of fisheries agreements, which will grant the Commission the necessary legal basis to transmit licence applications to third countries prior to the adoption of the Council Regulation concluding the agreement. This will, in most cases, ensure that Community vessels can continue their fishing activities in third-country waters without interruption.
Turning to the report, I would like to comment on the amendments proposed. The Commission can agree to Amendments 1, 3, 5, 11 and 16. As for Amendments 7 to 9 concerning the eligibility criteria, this list has been transformed into a positive list, rather than a negative one, in the first Presidency compromise text. In general terms, the compromise text, however, covers the Committee’s concerns, except for the extension of the eligibility criteria regarding infringements in the past 12 months, which is Amendment 8. The Commission finds that this provision should remain unchanged, believing it important as a precautionary measure in case of possible serious infringements.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 2 on the definition of infringements, as the definition of serious infringements is clear and is set out in Regulation No 1447/99. Regarding the amendment concerning non-transmission of all applications, which is Amendment 12, it should be noted that Article 10 has been deleted as part of the Presidency compromise text. This was done on the basis of the opinion of the Council’s legal service, which stated that the Commission has no legal basis to penalise the vessels of Member States as proposed in this article.
The Commission also finds that the Member States’ possibility of giving their opinion on any decision is already provided for in Article 9(2) and that any informal procedure prior to or after a negotiation should not be contained in this regulation. Therefore, Amendments 6 and 10 cannot be accepted.
Before closing, I would like to stress the following. Firstly, the daily transmission of catch data is required under the Regulation on electronic logbooks. Secondly, closing a fishery implicitly means that fishing authorisations are no longer valid for the stocks or areas concerned. Thirdly, all fishing activities in mixed fisheries must be considered as affecting the stocks concerned. Fourthly, national legislation determines what can be used as evidence in a court of law. This is why the Commission cannot accept Amendments 13, 14, 15 and 17. Amendment 4 and Amendments 18 and 19 cannot be accepted, since the text proposed by the Commission is correct – in the case of Amendment 4 – or is sufficiently clear – in the case of Amendments 18 and 19."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples