Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-09-Speech-4-028"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-09"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Rahvusvahelist delfiinikaitseprogrammi käsitlev leping⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050609.6.4-028"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-09-Speech-4-029⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Joe Borg⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne starte med at takke hr. Freitas for betænkningen og hans interesse for, deltagelse i og input til Fiskeriudvalget. Jeg vil også gerne takke formanden og udvalgsmedlemmerne for deres hurtige undersøgelse af forslaget til forordning. Det giver EU mulighed for at sende et klart signal til IATTC på årsmødet, der begynder den 13. juni 2005, om, at EU med Parlamentets vedtagelse af Kommissionens forslag er på rette vej til at færdiggøre de nødvendige interne procedurer for at blive fuldgyldigt medlem af denne organisation. Jeg er glad for at kunne godkende de ændringsforslag, som er stillet af hr. Freitas, navnlig ændringsforslag 2, 3, 5 og 6. Disse ændringsforslag vil især øge gennemsigtigheden og forenkle forståelsen af indholdet og ræsonnementet bag behovet for denne afgørelse fra Rådet, så EU kan opfylde sine internationale forpligtelser om at blive part i regionale fiskeriorganisationer, såfremt de eksisterer, og forsvare Fællesskabets interesser inden for globalt fiskeri. Fællesskabet kan således også være på forkant med disse organisationer og forstærke den førende rolle, som det hele tiden har spillet i driften af regionale fiskeriorganisationer. Jeg kan dog ikke godkende de resterende stillede ændringsforslag med undtagelse af ændringsforslag 4, som jeg kan godkende, såfremt ordene "samt aftalens certificeringsprocedure" udgår. Jeg vil kommentere certificeringsproceduren senere i forbindelse med andre ændringsforslag. Jeg synes, at det er vanskeligt at godkende de andre ændringsforslag af følgende årsager: Forslaget vedrører godkendelsen af AIDCP, hvorimod ændringsforslag 1, 9 og 11 fokuserer kraftigt på et spørgsmål, der er sekundært for AIDCP, nemlig overvågnings- og kontrolordningen for tun, som allerede er EU-lovgivning. Ifølge ændringsforslag 10 skal fremtidige ændringer af overvågnings- og kontrolordningen for tun følge en bestemt proces i modsætning til forordningens behørige komitologibestemmelser. Forordningen er allerede i kraft og kan ændres, når og såfremt det er nødvendigt. Ændringsforslag 7, 8 og 12 vedrører spørgsmålet om AIDCP-certificering og forbrugerinformation. Igen er sådanne ændringsforslag ikke nyttige i dette tilfælde, da medlemsstaterne stadig overvejer spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Fællesskabet accepterer AIDCP-certificering, og da Kommissionen afventer udfaldet af disse overvejelser, har den ikke noget fast standpunkt. Det er for tidligt at medtage en henvisning til certificering, og det kan skade den interne debat, som stadig ikke er afsluttet. Desuden er spørgsmålet om certificering ikke et af målene i AIDCP, og det er heller ikke omfattet af de generelle foranstaltninger i AIDCP-aftalen eller i selve AIDCP-programmets anvendelse. Det er en sekundær handelsmæssig økonomisk interesse, som er en konsekvens af gennemførelsen af en del af AIDCP, og er ikke et grundelement."@da² ". Herr Präsident, ich möchte zunächst Herrn Freitas für diesen Bericht danken wie auch für sein Interesse am Fischereiausschuss, seine Mitwirkung darin und seinen Beitrag. Danken möchte ich auch dem Vorsitzenden und den Mitgliedern des Fischereiausschusses für ihre zügige Prüfung dieses Vorschlags für eine Verordnung. Dadurch kann die Europäische Gemeinschaft auf der am 13. Juni 2005 beginnenden Jahrestagung des Übereinkommens zum Internationalen Delphinschutzprogramm (AIDCP) ein deutliches Signal setzen, dass sich die Europäische Gemeinschaft mit der Verabschiedung dieses Kommissionsvorschlags durch das Parlament auf dem rechten Weg zum Abschluss der erforderlichen internen Verfahren für eine Vollmitgliedschaft in dieser Organisation befindet. Ich freue mich, eine Reihe von Änderungsanträgen, die Herr Freitas vorgeschlagen hat, akzeptieren zu können, namentlich die Anträge 2, 3, 5 und 6. Diese Änderungsanträge werden insbesondere die Transparenz erhöhen sowie das Verständnis des Inhalts und der Argumentation hinsichtlich der Notwendigkeit dieses Ratsbeschlusses vereinfachen, der die Gemeinschaft in die Lage versetzt, ihre internationalen Verpflichtungen als künftiges Mitglied regionaler Fischereiorganisationen, wo es sie denn gibt, und als Verfechterin der Gemeinschaftsinteressen im weltweiten Fischereiwesen zu erfüllen. Damit erhält die Gemeinschaft auch die Möglichkeit, in diesen Organisationen an vorderster Front mitzuwirken und ihre führende Rolle zu stärken, die sie seit jeher in regionalen Fischereiorganisationen spielt. Ich sehe mich jedoch außer Stande, die übrigen Änderungsvorschläge zu akzeptieren, ausgenommen Antrag 4, den ich übernehmen kann, sofern der Teilsatz ‚und sein Zertifizierungsverfahren’ gestrichen wird. Zum Zertifizierungsverfahren werde ich später im Zusammenhang mit anderen Änderungsanträgen etwas sagen. Aus den folgenden Gründen habe ich Schwierigkeiten, die anderen Änderungsanträge zu akzeptieren. Dieser Vorschlag bezieht sich auf die Befürwortung des AIDCP, während die Änderungsanträge 1, 9 und 11 ihren Schwerpunkt auf ein zweitrangiges Problem des AIDCP, nämlich auf die Regelung zur Überwachung und Überprüfung der Thunfischfänge legen, was bereits EG-Recht ist. In Änderungsantrag 10 wird gefordert, dass künftige Änderungen der Verordnung zur Regelung zur Überwachung und Überprüfung der Thunfischfänge im Widerspruch zu den einschlägigen Komitologie-Bestimmungen in der Verordnung einem bestimmten Verfahren folgen. Diese Verordnung befindet sich bereits in Kraft, und sie kann, sofern und wenn notwendig, abgeändert werden. Die Änderungen 7, 8 und 12 beziehen sich auf die Frage der AIDCP-Zertifizierung und der Verbraucherinformation. Auch hier sind solche Änderungsanträge in diesem Fall nicht hilfreich, da die Frage, ob die Gemeinschaft eine AIDCP-Zertifizierung akzeptiert, zurzeit noch von den Mitgliedstaaten diskutiert wird, und da eine solche Konsultation noch aussteht, hat die Kommission noch keinen festen Standpunkt bezogen. Die Aufnahme jeglichen Bezugs auf die Zertifizierung wäre übereilt und könnte die noch abzuschließende interne Debatte beeinträchtigen. Ferner gehört die Zertifizierung nicht zu den Zielen des AIDCP, und sie ist auch nicht Gegenstand der allgemeinen Maßnahmen des AIDCP oder der Ausführungsbestimmungen des eigentlichen AIDCP-Programms. Sie ist von zweitrangigem handelsökonomischen Interesse und eine Folge der teilweisen Umsetzung des AIDCP, kein Kernelement."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα καταρχάς να ευχαριστήσω τον κ. Freitas για την έκθεσή του, καθώς και για το ενδιαφέρον που έδειξε, τη συμμετοχή και τη συμβολή του στην Επιτροπή Αλιείας. Θα ήθελα επίσης να ευχαριστήσω τον Πρόεδρο και τα μέλη αυτής της επιτροπής για την ταχύτητα με την οποία εξέτασαν τον προτεινόμενο κανονισμό. Αυτό θα επιτρέψει στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να στείλει ένα σαφές μήνυμα στη ΣΔΠΔΔ στην ετήσια διάσκεψή της την 13η Ιουνίου 2005, ότι με την έγκριση αυτής της πρότασης της Επιτροπής από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, η Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινότητα έχει προχωρήσει σε σημαντικό βαθμό στην ολοκλήρωση των αναγκαίων εσωτερικών διαδικασιών, για να γίνει πλήρες μέλος αυτής της οργάνωσης. Αποδέχομαι ευχαρίστως έναν αριθμό τροπολογιών που υπέδειξε ο κ. Freitas, ιδίως τις τροπολογίες 2, 3, 5 και 6. Συγκεκριμένα, αυτές οι τροπολογίες θα προσδώσουν ενάργεια στην ανάγκη για αυτήν την απόφαση του Συμβουλίου και θα απλοποιήσουν την κατανόηση του περιεχομένου και του σκεπτικού που την αιτιολογεί, πράγμα που θα επιτρέψει στην Κοινότητα να εκπληρώσει τις διεθνείς υποχρεώσεις της να γίνει μέλος σε περιφερειακές οργανώσεις αλιείας, όπου υπάρχουν, και να υπερασπιστεί τα κοινοτικά συμφέροντα στην παγκόσμια αλιεία. Αυτό θα επιτρέψει επίσης στην Κοινότητα να βρεθεί στο προσκήνιο σε αυτές τις οργανώσεις και να προβάλει τον πρωταγωνιστικό ρόλο που αδιαλείπτως διαδραματίζει στη λειτουργία των περιφερειακών οργανώσεων αλιείας. Ωστόσο, δεν είμαι σε θέση να αποδεχθώ τις υπόλοιπες τροπολογίες που προτείνονται, με εξαίρεση την τροπολογία 4, την οποία μπορώ να αποδεχθώ, υπό τον όρο να διαγραφεί η φράση «καθώς και τη σημασία της διαδικασίας πιστοποίησης». Θα σχολιάσω παρακάτω τη διαδικασία πιστοποίησης, σε σχέση με άλλες τροπολογίες. Δυσκολεύομαι να αποδεχθώ τις υπόλοιπες τροπολογίες, για τους εξής λόγους. Αυτή η πρόταση σχετίζεται με την έγκριση της ΣΔΠΔΔ, ενώ αντίθετα οι τροπολογίες 1, 9 και 11 επικεντρώνονται υπερβολικά σε ένα δευτερεύον ζήτημα της ΣΔΠΔΔ, συγκεκριμένα στο σύστημα παρακολούθησης και ελέγχου του τόνου, κάτι που είναι ήδη κοινοτικός νόμος. Η τροπολογία 10 αξιώνει οι μελλοντικές αλλαγές στη ρύθμιση του συστήματος παρακολούθησης και ελέγχου του τόνου να ακολουθούν μία ορισμένη διαδικασία, σε αντίφαση με τις συναφείς διατάξεις επιτροπολογίας στο πλαίσιο του κανονισμού. Ο κανονισμός έχει ήδη τεθεί σε ισχύ και μπορεί να τροποποιηθεί εάν και εφόσον απαιτείται. Οι τροπολογίες 7, 8 και 12 σχετίζονται με το ζήτημα της πιστοποίησης της ΣΔΠΔΔ και της ενημέρωσης του καταναλωτή. Από την άλλη μεριά, αυτές οι τροπολογίες δεν προσφέρουν τίποτε εν προκειμένω, εφόσον το ζήτημα αν η Κοινότητα αποδέχεται την πιστοποίηση της ΣΔΠΔΔ εξακολουθεί να μελετάται από τα κράτη μέλη και, εν αναμονή μιας τέτοιας διαβούλευσης, η Επιτροπή δεν έχει προκρίνει καμία πάγια θέση. Η συμπερίληψη οποιασδήποτε αναφοράς στην πιστοποίηση είναι πρόωρη και θα μπορούσε να προκαταλάβει τον εσωτερικό διάλογο που δεν έχει ακόμη ολοκληρωθεί. Άλλωστε, το ζήτημα της πιστοποίησης δεν ανήκει στις επιδιώξεις της ΣΔΠΔΔ, ούτε συγκαταλέγεται στα γενικά μέτρα της συμφωνίας ΣΔΠΔΔ, ούτε στην εφαρμογή του ίδιου του προγράμματος ΣΔΠΔΔ. Πρόκειται για δευτερεύον εμπορικό οικονομικό συμφέρον που είναι αποτέλεσμα της υλοποίησης μέρους της ΣΔΠΔΔ και όχι ουσιώδες στοιχείο."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, quisiera comenzar dando las gracias al señor Freitas por su informe, así como por su interés, su participación y su aportación en la Comisión de Pesca. También quisiera dar las gracias al Presidente y a los miembros de la comisión parlamentaria por su rápido examen de esta propuesta de normativa. Esto permitirá a la Comunidad Europea transmitir una clara señal al APICD en su reunión anual, que comienza el 13 de junio de 2005, de que con la aprobación por el Parlamento de esta propuesta de la Comisión, la Comunidad Europea está a punto de completar los procedimientos internos necesarios para convertirse en miembro de pleno derecho de esta organización. Me complace aceptar una serie de enmiendas propuestas por el señor Freitas, a saber, las enmiendas 2, 3, 5 y 6. En particular, estas enmiendas aumentarán la transparencia y simplificarán la comprensión del contenido y el razonamiento que justifica la necesidad de esta decisión del Consejo, que permitirá que la Comunidad cumpla con sus obligaciones internacionales de adherirse a las organizaciones regionales de pesca, allí donde existan, y de defender los intereses de la Comunidad en el sector pesquero mundial. Esto también permitirá a la Comunidad situarse a la cabeza de estas organizaciones y reforzar el papel de liderazgo que ha desempeñado constantemente en las actividades de las organizaciones pesqueras regionales. No obstante, no estoy en condiciones de aceptar las demás enmiendas propuestas, excepto la enmienda 4, que puedo aceptar a condición de que se elimine la expresión «así como su proceso de certificación». Comentaré el proceso de certificación más adelante en relación con otras enmiendas. Tengo dificultades para aceptar las demás enmiendas por las siguientes razones. Esta propuesta se refiere a la aprobación del APICD, mientras que las enmiendas 1, 9 y 11 se centran sobre todo en una cuestión secundaria del APICD, que es el sistema de seguimiento y verificación del atún, que ya forma parte de la legislación de la CE. La enmienda 10 exige que los cambios futuros en el sistema de seguimiento y verificación del atún sigan cierto proceso, cosa que contradice las respectivas disposiciones de comitología incluidas en el instrumento. Esta normativa ya está en vigor y puede modificarse cuando sea necesario. Las enmiendas 7, 8 y 12 se refieren a la emisión de la certificación del APICD y a la información al consumidor. Del mismo modo, dichas enmiendas no son útiles en este caso, puesto que la cuestión de la aceptación por parte de la Comunidad de la certificación del APICD todavía está siendo estudiada por los Estados miembros, y a la espera de los resultados de esa consulta, la Comisión no ha tomado postura en firme. La inclusión de cualquier referencia a la certificación es prematura y podría perjudicar el debate interno que todavía tiene que concluir. Además, la cuestión de la certificación no es uno de los objetivos del APICD ni está incluida en las medidas generales del Acuerdo APICD ni en la aplicación del propio Programa APICD. Se trata de un interés económico y comercial secundario que es consecuencia de la implementación de una parte del APICD, y no de un elemento esencial."@es²⁰ "Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, haluan aluksi kiittää jäsen Freitasia tästä mietinnöstä sekä hänen osallistumisestaan kalatalousvaliokunnan työskentelyyn, sitä kohtaan osoittamastaan mielenkiinnosta ja siihen antamastaan panoksesta. Haluan lisäksi kiittää valiokunnan puheenjohtajaa ja sen jäseniä asetusehdotuksen joutuisasta käsittelystä. Näin Euroopan yhteisö pystyy lähettämään kansainvälistä delfiinien suojeluohjelmaa koskevaa sopimusta (AIDCP) 13. kesäkuuta 2005 käsittelevälle vuosikokoukselle selkeän viestin siitä, että kun parlamentti hyväksyy komission ehdotuksen, Euroopan yhteisö on edennyt merkittävästi niiden sisäisten menettelyjen päätökseen saattamisessa, jotka ovat välttämätön edellytys tämän järjestön täysimääräiselle jäsenyydelle. Hyväksyn mielelläni useita jäsen Freitasin esittämiä tarkistuksia eli tarkistukset 2, 3, 5 ja 6. Näillä tarkistuksilla tehdään erityisesti sisällöstä helppotajuisempi ja selkeytetään tämän tärkeän neuvoston päätöksen taustoja. Päätös on tarpeen, jotta yhteisö voi täyttää kansainväliset sitoumuksensa ja jotta siitä tulisi alueellisten kalastusjärjestöjen jäsen kaikkialla maailmassa. Näin se pystyy puolustamaan kalataloutta koskevia yhteisön intressejä maailmanlaajuisesti. Yhteisöstä tulee tällä tavoin myös näiden järjestöjen edelläkävijä, ja se ottaa niissä johtavan aseman, joka sillä on jo ollutkin alueellisten kalastusjärjestöjen toiminnassa. En kuitenkaan voi hyväksyä muita ehdotettuja tarkistuksia lukuun ottamatta tarkistusta 4, jonka voin hyväksyä, jos siitä poistetaan virke "sekä sen vahvistamismenettelyt". Käsittelen tätä vahvistamismenettelyä ja merkintöjä myöhemmin muiden tarkistusten yhteydessä. Muita tarkistuksia ei voida hyväksyä seuraavista syistä. Ehdotus koskee AIDCP:n hyväksymistä, kun taas tarkistuksissa 1, 9 ja 11 käsitellään pääasiassa AIDCP:hen toissijaisesti liittyvää asiaa eli tonnikalan seuranta- ja tarkastusjärjestelmää, joka sisältyy jo yhteisön lainsäädäntöön. Tarkastuksessa 10 esitetään, että tonnikalasaaliiden seuranta- ja tarkastusmenettelyjä koskevat muutokset toteutetaan tiettyä menettelyä noudattaen, mikä on ristiriidassa asetuksen asiaankuuluvien komitologiaa koskevien säädösten kanssa. Kyseinen asetus on jo voimassa, ja sitä muutetaan ainoastaan tarvittaessa. Tarkistukset 7, 8 ja 12 liittyvät AIDCP:n mukaisiin merkintöihin ja kuluttajille tiedottamiseen. Nämäkään tarkistukset eivät ole tarpeen tässä tapauksessa, sillä jäsenvaltiot eivät ole vielä päättäneet, hyväksyykö yhteisö AIDCP:n merkin, eikä komissio ole tästä syystä vielä vahvistanut kantaansa. Viittaukset näihin merkintöihin ovat ennenaikaisia tässä vaiheessa, ja ne voivat haitata yhteisössä parhaillaan käytävää keskustelua. Merkinnät eivät sitä paitsi kuulu AIDCP:n tavoitteisiin, ne eivät sisälly AIDCP:n yleisiin toimenpiteisiin eivätkä AIDCP-ohjelman toteuttamiseen. Merkinnät ovat toissijainen kaupallinen näkökohta, joka on yksi AIDCP:n täytäntöönpanon seurauksista, muttei kuitenkaan sen keskeinen osatekijä."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, je voudrais commencer par remercier M. Freitas pour son rapport, ainsi que pour sa participation et sa contribution à la commission de la pêche et pour l’intérêt qu’il a manifesté. Je voudrais également remercier le président et les membres de la commission pour leur diligence dans l’examen de la proposition de règlement. Cela permettra à la Communauté européenne de montrer clairement à l’APICD lors de sa réunion annuelle qui débute le 13 juin 2005, qu’avec l’adoption par le Parlement de cette proposition de la Commission, la Communauté européenne est en bonne voie d’achever les procédures internes nécessaires pour devenir membre à part entière de cette organisation. Je suis heureux d’accepter une série d’amendements proposés par M. Freitas, à savoir les amendements 2, 3, 5 et 6. En particulier, ces amendements rendront plus transparents et simplifieront la compréhension du contenu et du raisonnement sous-tendant la nécessité d’adopter cette décision du Conseil, qui permettra à la Communauté de remplir ses obligations internationales en devenant partie prenante d’organisations régionales de pêche, si elles existent, et de défendre les intérêts de la Communauté dans le domaine de la pêche. Cela permettra aussi à la Communauté d’être à l’avant-plan de ces organisations et de mettre en valeur le rôle de premier plan qu’elle a toujours joué dans le fonctionnement des organisations régionales de pêche. Néanmoins, je ne suis pas en mesure d’accepter le reste des amendements proposés, sauf l’amendement 4, à condition de supprimer l’expression «ainsi que du processus de certification visé par cet accord». Je ferai part de mes commentaires sur le processus de certification plus tard, lorsque je parlerai d’autres amendements. J’éprouve des difficultés à accepter les autres amendements pour les raisons suivantes. La présente proposition porte sur la conclusion d’un accord relatif à l’APICD, alors que les amendements 1, 9 et 11 insistent lourdement sur une question secondaire à l’APICD, à savoir, le système de suivi et de vérification du thon qui est déjà couvert par la législation communautaire. L’amendement 10 exige que les futurs changements apportés au système de suivi et de vérification du thon suivent un certain processus, ce qui va en contradiction avec les dispositions comitologiques pertinentes stipulées dans le règlement. Ce règlement est déjà entré en vigueur et des changements peuvent, le cas échéant, lui être apportés. Les amendements 7, 8 et 12 portent sur la question de la certification APICD et des informations fournies aux consommateurs. À nouveau, ces amendements ne sont pas utiles dans le cas présent, puisque les États membres sont encore en train de statuer sur le question de savoir si la Communauté accepte la certification APICD et, sous réserve de cette consultation, la Commission n’a arrêté aucun avis. Il est prématuré d’ajouter une quelconque référence à la certification, car cela pourrait porter préjudice au débat interne qui n’est pas encore conclu. En outre, la question de la certification ne fait pas partie des objectifs de l’APICD; elle ne figure pas non plus parmi les mesures générales de l’accord APICD ni dans l’application du programme APICD lui-même. Il s’agit d’un intérêt économique secondaire qui est une conséquence de la mise en œuvre d’un volet de l’APICD, mais qui n’est pas un élément central."@fr⁸ "Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, desidero innanzi tutto ringraziare l’onorevole Freitas per la sua relazione nonché per l’interesse e la partecipazione con cui ha operato nell’ambito della commissione per la pesca e per i contributi che vi ha apportato. Ringrazio altresì il presidente e i membri della commissione per la loro sollecita disamina di questa proposta, che consente dunque alla Comunità europea di lanciare alla riunione annuale dei firmatari dell’accordo sul programma internazionale di conservazione dei delfini, che inizierà il 13 giugno 2005, un chiaro segnale, ovvero che, con l’adozione da parte del Parlamento di questa proposta della Commissione, la Comunità europea ha sicuramente imboccato la strada verso il completamento delle procedure interne necessarie per poter diventare membro a pieno titolo di quella organizzazione. E’ per me un piacere poter accogliere alcuni degli emendamenti proposti dall’onorevole Freitas, più precisamente gli emendamenti nn. 2, 3, 5 e 6, i quali contribuiranno in particolare ad aumentare la trasparenza e a rendere più chiari e comprensibili i contenuti e i ragionamenti su cui si fonda questa decisione del Consiglio, che mette la Comunità in condizione di adempiere i suoi obblighi internazionali per diventare un interlocutore delle organizzazioni regionali della pesca, laddove esse esistono, e di difendere gli interessi della Comunità nel contesto della pesca globale. Tutto ciò consentirà inoltre alla Comunità di essere all’avanguardia di queste organizzazioni e di rafforzare il ruolo guida che ha sempre svolto nel funzionamento delle organizzazioni regionali della pesca. Non posso, invece, accogliere gli altri emendamenti che sono stati proposti, ad eccezione del n. 4, che approvo purché sia stralciata la frase “e il suo schema di certificazione”. Ritornerò sullo schema di certificazione più tardi, commentando gli altri emendamenti. Ritengo difficile accettare gli altri emendamenti per i motivi che ora spiegherò. La proposta attiene all’approvazione dell’accordo sul programma internazionale di conservazione dei delfini, in sigla AIDCP, mentre gli emendamenti nn. 1, 9 e 11 riguardano precipuamente una questione secondaria dell’AIDCP, ovvero il sistema di sorveglianza e verifica per il tonno, che è già legge della Comunità europea. L’emendamento n. 10 stabilisce che i cambiamenti futuri del regolamento sul sistema di sorveglianza e verifica per il tonno avvengano secondo una determinata procedura, il che è però in contrasto con le norme corrette di comitatologia fissate dal relativo regolamento. Quest’ultimo è, peraltro, già in vigore e può essere modificato se e quando necessario. Gli emendamenti nn. 7, 8 e 12 riguardano la questione della certificazione AIDCP e l’informazione dei consumatori. Anche in questo caso, gli emendamenti non sono utili allo scopo perché gli Stati membri stanno ancora vagliando l’opportunità che la Comunità accetti o meno la certificazione AIDCP, e, in attesa degli esiti di tale consultazione, la Commissione non ha ancora adottato alcuna posizione definitiva in merito. L’inserimento di qualsiasi riferimento alla certificazione è pertanto prematuro e potrebbe pregiudicare la discussione interna, ancora in corso. Inoltre, la questione della certificazione non solo non rientra tra gli obiettivi dell’accordo, ma non è neppure prevista né tra le misure generali dell’accordo né in sede di applicazione del relativo programma. Si tratta al riguardo di un interesse economico e commerciale secondario, che è solo una conseguenza dell’attuazione di parti dell’accordo, non un suo elemento fondamentale."@it¹² "Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@lv¹³ "Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil allereerst de heer Freitas bedanken voor zijn verslag, alsmede voor zijn interesse, deelname en inbreng in de Commissie visserij. Ik wil verder de voorzitter en de leden van de commissie bedanken voor hun snelle analyse van de voorgestelde verordening. Op deze manier kan de Europese Gemeenschap een duidelijke boodschap sturen aan de partijen bij de Overeenkomst inzake het internationale programma voor het behoud van dolfijnen (AIDCP) voor hun jaarlijkse bijeenkomst, die op 13 juni 2005 van start gaat, namelijk dat de Europese Gemeenschap met de goedkeuring van dit voorstel van de Commissie door het Parlement een eind gevorderd is met de noodzakelijke interne procedures voor het verwerven van het volwaardige lidmaatschap van deze organisatie. Ik stem graag in met een aantal amendementen dat is voorgesteld door de heer Freitas, met name de amendementen 2, 3, 5 en 6. Deze amendementen zullen vooral de transparantie ten goede komen en beter duidelijk maken wat dit nieuwe besluit van de Raad inhoudt en waarom het noodzakelijk is. Het besluit stelt de Gemeenschap in staat haar internationale verplichtingen na te komen om lid te kunnen worden van bestaande regionale visserijorganisaties, en de belangen van de Gemeenschap te verdedigen in de wereldwijde visserij. Dit zal de Gemeenschap tevens in staat stellen voorop te lopen in deze organisaties en de leidende rol te versterken die zij voortdurend heeft gespeeld met betrekking tot het functioneren van de regionale visserijorganisaties. Ik verkeer echter niet in de positie de rest van de voorgestelde amendementen te aanvaarden, met uitzondering van amendement 4, dat ik kan aanvaarden mits de formulering "alsmede van de hierin neergelegde certificeringsprocedure" wordt geschrapt. Ik zal later terugkomen op de certificeringsprocedure in verband met andere amendementen. Ik heb problemen met het aanvaarden van de andere amendementen en wel om de volgende redenen. Dit voorstel heeft betrekking op de goedkeuring van de AIDCP, terwijl de amendementen 1, 9, en 11 vooral gericht zijn op een secundaire kwestie in verband met de AIDCP, namelijk de regeling voor toezicht op en verificatie van tonijnvangsten, die al deel uitmaakt van de communautaire wetgeving. In amendement 10 wordt geëist dat toekomstige wijzigingen van de regeling voor toezicht op en verificatie van tonijnvangsten verlopen volgens een bepaald proces, hetgeen in tegenspraak is met de geldende comitologiebepalingen in de verordening. Deze verordening is reeds van kracht en mocht dat noodzakelijk zijn, dan kunnen er wijzigingen in worden aangebracht. De amendementen 7, 8, en 12 hebben betrekking op AIDCP-etikettering en consumenteninformatie. Ook in dit geval geldt dat dergelijke amendementen niet nuttig zijn, aangezien de lidstaten zich nog altijd beraden over de vraag of de Gemeenschap de AIDCP-etikettering moet aanvaarden, en in afwachting van de uitkomst van hun overleg heeft de Commissie nog geen vast standpunt ingenomen. De opname van enige verwijzing naar etikettering is voorbarig en zou van invloed kunnen zijn op het interne debat dat nog altijd niet is afgerond. Bovendien is de kwestie van de etikettering geen doelstelling van de AIDCP, en dit maakt ook geen deel uit van de algemene maatregelen in de AIDCP, noch van de toepassing van het AIDCP-programma zelf. Het betreft hier een secundair commercieel economisch belang dat voortvloeit uit de tenuitvoerlegging van een deel van de AIDCP, maar hiervan geen kernelement vormt."@nl³ "Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, começo por agradecer ao senhor deputado Freitas o seu relatório, bem como o envolvimento e o interesse que manifestou, e ainda o contributo que deu, para o tratamento deste assunto no seio da Comissão das Pescas. Gostaria igualmente de agradecer ao presidente e aos restantes membros da Comissão das Pescas a celeridade com que procederam à análise desta proposta de regulamento. Isto permitirá à União Europeia transmitir à Comissão Interamericana do Atum Tropical, ou CIAT, na reunião anual desta organização, que terá início a 13 de Junho de 2005, um claro sinal de que, com a adopção pelo Parlamento desta proposta da Comissão, a União Europeia se encontra numa fase avançada dos procedimentos internos necessários para se tornar membro efectivo daquela organização. Apraz-me aceitar algumas das alterações sugeridas pelo senhor deputado Freitas, nomeadamente, as alterações 2, 3, 5 e 6. Estas alterações contribuirão, em especial, para aumentar a transparência e simplificar a compreensão do conteúdo e do raciocínio subjacente à necessidade de adopção desta decisão do Conselho, a qual permitirá à União Europeia cumprir com a sua obrigação, no plano internacional, de se tornar parte contratante nas organizações regionais de pesca, onde quer que existam, e de defender os interesses comunitários no domínio das pescas a nível mundial. Isto permitirá igualmente à União situar-se na linha da frente destas organizações, reforçando o papel de liderança que sempre desempenhou no funcionamento das organizações regionais de pesca. Não estou, porém, em posição de aceitar as restantes alterações propostas, com excepção da alteração 4, que poderei aceitar contanto que a expressão "assim como o seu processo de certificação" seja suprimida. Pronunciar-me-ei sobre o sistema de certificação mais adiante, a propósito de outras alterações. Tenho dificuldade em aceitar as restantes alterações pelas razões que se seguem. A proposta em apreço prende-se com a aprovação do Acordo sobre o Programa Internacional de Conservação dos Golfinhos, ou AIDCP, ao passo que as alterações 1, 9 e 11 colocam a tónica num aspecto secundário desse acordo, concretamente, o sistema de acompanhamento e verificação das capturas do atum, que já faz parte integrante da legislação comunitária. A alteração 10 requer que quaisquer futuras alterações ao regulamento sobre o referido sistema de acompanhamento e verificação do atum obedeça a determinados procedimentos, em contradição com as pertinentes disposições de "comitologia" previstas no próprio regulamento. Este regulamento já se encontra em vigor, podendo ser objecto de alterações se e quando necessário. As alterações 7, 8 e 12 referem-se à questão da certificação prevista no AIDCP e à informação do consumidor. Também aqui se trata de alterações que não são de grande utilidade nas circunstâncias em apreço, uma vez que a questão de saber se a União Europeia aceita a certificação AIDCP ainda está a ser ponderada pelos Estados-Membros e, na pendência dessa consulta, a Comissão não adoptou qualquer posição firme. Afigura-se, pois, prematura a inclusão de qualquer referência à certificação, podendo mesmo prejudicar o debate interno que ainda está por concluir. Acresce que a questão da certificação não consta entre os objectivos do AIDCP, nem faz parte das medidas de carácter geral desse acordo ou das medidas de aplicação do programa propriamente dito. Trata-se de um interesse económico e comercial de carácter secundário, consequência da aplicação de uma parte do AIDCP e não um elemento fulcral do mesmo."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Freitas for this report, as well as for his interest, participation and input in the Committee on Fisheries. I would also like to thank the President and the members of the committee for its expeditious examination of this proposed regulation. This will enable the European Community to pass a clear signal to the AIDCP at its Annual Meeting beginning on 13 June 2005, that with the adoption by Parliament of this proposal from the Commission, the European Community is well on the road to completing the necessary internal procedures to becoming a full member of this organisation. I am pleased to accept a number of amendments suggested by Mr Freitas, notably Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6. In particular, these amendments will increase the transparency and simplify the understanding of the content and reasoning behind the need for this Council decision, which will enable the Community to fulfil its international obligations to become a party to regional fisheries organisations where they exist and to defend Community interests in the global fisheries. This will also enable the Community to be at the forefront of these organisations and enhance the leading role that it has constantly played in the operation of regional fisheries organisations. I am not, however, in a position to accept the remaining proposed amendments, with the exception of Amendment 4, which I can accept provided that the phrase ‘and its certification scheme’ is deleted. I will comment on the certification scheme later with respect to other amendments. I find difficulty in accepting the other amendments for the following reasons. This proposal relates to the approval of AIDCP, whereas Amendments 1, 9, and 11 focus heavily on a secondary issue of the AIDCP, namely, the tuna tracking and verification system, which is already EC law. Amendment 10 requires that future changes to the tuna tracking and verification system regulation follow a certain process, in contradiction to the appropriate comitology provisions within the regulation. This regulation is already in force and changes can be made to it as and when necessary. Amendments 7, 8, and 12 relate to the issue of AIDCP certification and consumer information. Again, such amendments are not helpful in this instance since the issue of whether the Community accepts AIDCP certification is still being considered by the Member States and, pending such a consultation, the Commission has not adopted any fixed position. The inclusion of any reference to certification is premature and could prejudice the internal debate that still has to be concluded. Furthermore, the issue of certification is not one of the objectives of the AIDCP, nor is it included in the general measures of the AIDCP Agreement, nor in the application of the AIDCP Programme itself. This is a secondary commercial economic interest that is a consequence of the implementation of part of the AIDCP, and not a core element."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Jag vill börja med att tacka Duarte Freitas för betänkandet, liksom för hans intresse, medverkan och insatser i fiskeriutskottet. Jag vill också tacka utskottets ordförande och ledamöter för den snabba behandlingen av förslaget till förordning. Detta kommer att göra det möjligt för Europeiska gemenskapen att vid årsmötet för avtalet om det internationella programmet för bevarande av delfiner (AIDCP), som inleds den 13 juni 2005, förmedla ett tydligt budskap om att gemenskapen, i och med att parlamentet antar detta förslag från kommissionen, är på god väg att slutföra de interna förfaranden som krävs för att bli fullvärdig medlem av organisationen. Det gläder mig att kunna godta ett antal av de ändringsförslag som Duarte Freitas har lagt fram, nämligen ändringsförslagen 2, 3, 5 och 6. I synnerhet kommer dessa ändringsförslag att öka insynen och göra det lättare att förstå innehållet i och resonemanget bakom detta beslut av rådet, som kommer att göra det möjligt för gemenskapen att fullfölja sina internationella skyldigheter att agera inom regionala fiskeorganisationer, där sådana finns, och att försvara gemenskapens intressen i det globala fisket. Detta kommer också att göra det möjligt för gemenskapen att vara drivande i dessa organisationer och förstärka den ledande roll som den alltid har spelat i skötseln av regionala fiskeorganisationer. Jag kan dock inte gå med på de återstående ändringsförslagen, med undantag av ändringsförslag 4, som jag kan godta under förutsättning att orden ”samt av det certifieringsförfarande som föreskrivs i avtalet” utgår. Jag kommer att kommentera certifieringsförfarandet senare i samband med andra ändringsförslag. Jag har svårt att godta de övriga ändringsförslagen av följande skäl. Det här förslaget har med godkännandet av AIDCP att göra, medan ändringsförslagen 1, 9 och 11 är starkt inriktade på en sekundär fråga i AIDCP, nämligen det system för uppföljning och kontroll av tonfisk som redan finns med i EG-lagstiftningen. I ändringsförslag 10 kräver man att framtida ändringar i förordningen om systemet för uppföljning och kontroll av tonfisk skall göras på ett visst sätt, som strider emot de tillämpliga bestämmelserna om utskottsförfarande i förordningen. Förordningen gäller redan och kan ändras om och när det behövs. Ändringsförslagen 7, 8 och 12 gäller frågan om AIDCP-certifiering och konsumentupplysning. Sådana ändringsförslag tillför inte heller någonting i det här läget, eftersom medlemsstaterna fortfarande funderar på frågan om huruvida gemenskapen godtar AIDCP-certifiering och eftersom kommissionen, i avvaktan på ett svar, ännu inte har tagit klar ställning. Det är för tidigt att ta med någon hänvisning till certifiering, och det kan snedvrida den interna debatt som ännu inte har avslutats. Dessutom är inte frågan om certifiering ett av målen för AIDCP, och den finns inte heller med bland de generella åtgärderna i AIDCP-avtalet eller i tillämpningen av själva AIDCP-programmet. Detta är ett sekundärt kommersiellt ekonomiskt intresse som följer av att en del av AIDCP har förverkligats, inte en kärnfråga."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"EN"¹⁰ "Joe Borg,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4} "Member of the Commission"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4} "μέλος της Επιτροπής"¹⁰