Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-09-Speech-3-498"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080709.41.3-498"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for the interesting comments and the debate that we have had. I would like to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised.
Concerning the reason for the denunciation and the renegotiation of the protocol, namely that it was under-utilised, again I would like to make the point made by Mrs Isler Béguin that such agreements are not only about fisheries but also about development assistance. In fact, whereas we have decreased the financial component for fishing opportunities, there is a clear undertaking on our part to increase the development component, and we are fully committed to respect this.
Therefore, in total, the financial allocation has been maintained over the four-year term. The budgetary support to the 10th EDF will compensate for the remaining EUR 40 million for 2009/10-2012 at the rate of EUR 10 million per year and this means that Mauritania will be receiving a financial package which, when you take into account both what they are receiving by way of compensation for fishing opportunities – which have been reduced on the basis of what was actually being fished in Mauritanian waters – and the increase to the budgetary support through the 10th EDF ad hoc compensation within this protocol, we end up with a situation where the total package is equivalent to the fishing package that they had under the previous financial protocol.
Finally on the issue of boarding I would like to say that a meeting of the working group will be held this Sunday, this weekend, in order to discuss this specific issue and to agree on recommendations and guidelines that should solve the issue. On the point made by Mrs Fraga at the very outset concerning participation of MEPs, the Commission considers that the same approach that is followed for the participation of MEPs in bilateral negotiations has to be followed as regards joint committees where the two parties are officially represented.
The Commission will, however, continue to cooperate with Parliament on the basis of the framework agreement that exists.
First of all you are correct to point out that there are fewer fishing opportunities under this revised protocol. This was precisely the reason behind our decision to effect a renegotiation, because we needed to ensure maximum utilisation of the fishing opportunities, whereas under the previous situation there was significant under-utilisation of the fishing possibilities both with regard to small pelagics and with regard to cephalopods.
On the issue of technical requirements, for example with regard to dredges, we hope that we will find a solution quickly to this issue, and the Mauritanian authorities are very well disposed to finding a solution to the satisfaction of both sides. Regarding rest periods, this request came originally from the industry since they maintain that, after such rest periods, catches become more profitable.
On the question of setting the minimum size for octopus at 500 g, I need to make the point that we are dealing with a third country, a sovereign nation, Mauritania, and its own regulation specifies that the minimum size for octopus is 500 g. This was a line we could not cross during negotiations: one cannot ask a third country to change its legislation because it is interesting to our own fishermen to catch smaller-sized cephalopods. However, we do recognise that there is not one harmonised regulation on the subject in the region. There are other countries which allow catches of cephalopods of smaller size, and therefore a decision on this matter should be taken within the COPACE organisation.
On the issue of allocation keys, i.e. what is known as ‘relative stability’, as I said before the Commission is not bound to transfer relative stability from one agreement to another or from one protocol to another.
However, it is provided for in the agreement and in the protocol that, should Member States need more opportunities, and should such requests be based on science, on the state of the stock, then such requests could certainly be considered, and I would undertake to take them up with Mauritania in order to negotiate increases, as in the case for example of cephalopods, if there is a specific request to do so.
I need to make the point that with regard to cephalopods licences were utilised on 22 occasions and in the new protocol there is provision for 25, so we are actually catering for creating a buffer, allowing for utilisation.
If the particular Member State involved maintains that they have requests in excess of 25, as long as they give us the specific facts, we will take those up with Mauritania in order to bring about an increase, always as long as the state of the stock allows. I need to underline the fact that with regard to cephalopods we do have problems concerning the sustainability and the health of the stock.
Again on the question of this whole issue of relative stability, I would also like to point out that one cannot have one’s cake and eat it. On one hand, when it comes to the allocation of cephalopods, the allocation seems not to please one particular Member State. But then when it comes to tuna where there is a significant increase of allocations for that same Member State, then that works out in the Member State’s favour and we have received no complaints in that regard."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples