Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-297"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.20.3-297"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@cs1
"Hr. formand, først og fremmest vil jeg gerne takke det ærede medlem for hendes betænkning om forslag til Rådets forordning om EF-finansieringsforanstaltninger til gennemførelse af den fælles fiskeripolitik og havretten. Den finansiering, der foreslås i denne forordning, vil udgøre en væsentlig del af pakken med finansielle overslag for fiskeriet for 2007-2013. Næst efter Den Europæiske Fiskerifond udgør denne forordning det juridiske grundlag for de fleste andre udgifter, der muliggør fortsættelsen af den fælles fiskeripolitik, og baseret på Kommissionens oprindelige forslag til finansielt overslag vil den dække udgifter på mere end 2,5 milliarder euro i den syvårige periode 2007-2013.
Selv om Kommissionen principielt er enig i substansen af ændringsforslag 12, har den vanskeligt ved at acceptere dette ændringsforslags form. Ændringsforslaget kunne resultere i en indsnævring af omfanget af det, der skulle være en bred og generel paragraf, der omhandlede målene for partnerskabsaftaler inden for fiskeriet. Omkostningseffektivitet er bare et af de principper, der nævnes i Rådets konklusion af 19. juli 2004 omkring partnerskabsaftaler inden for fiskeriet, og det bør ikke individuelt fremhæves på bekostning af andre principper og mål, der er defineret af Rådet.
Kommissionen har vanskeligt ved at acceptere ændringsforslag 13. De fleste af de nævnte aspekter er dækket enten af Rådets konklusioner vedrørende aftaler om fiskeripartnerskaber eller af den finansforordning, der gælder for Fællesskabets almindelige budget.
Kommissionen er enig i substansen af ændringsforslag 14, men ikke i formen. Principielt er Kommissionen enig i at fremlægge resuméer og indsamlede data efter anmodning, eller hvis der er særligt behov for det, men det er ikke planen på nuværende tidspunkt automatisk at udsende disse data i form af en periodisk publikation eller rapport.
Ændringsforslag 15 kan ikke accepteres af Kommissionen, da fiskeripartnerskabsaftaler essentielt er baseret på et kommercielt forhold. Det pågældende tredjeland er ansvarlig for og bestemmer suverænt over brugen af sine indtægter under denne aftale helt eller delvist til støtte for fiskeripolitikken til de formål, som der er opnået enighed om i en fælles holdning sammen med Fællesskabet. Parterne vil sammen se på de resultater, der er opnået med denne politik. Men i denne forbindelse kan Kommissionen ikke gennemtvinge revisioner eller undersøgelser på stedet af tredjelande uden deres samtykke.
Af lignende grunde kan Kommissionen ikke acceptere ændringsforslag 16. Hver fiskeripartnerskabsaftale indeholder bestemmelser om udbetaling af midler såvel som om brugen af den del af disse midler, der er beregnet til fiskeripolitikken i det pågældende tredjeland. På basis af indikatorer og benchmarks vil begge parter i fællesskab evaluere resultaterne af denne politik og foretage de nødvendige forandringer, hvor det er passende. Hvad angår det nationale budget og den økonomiske administration, er tredjelandet imidlertid helt suverænt.
Som jeg allerede har sagt, kan Kommissionen godt acceptere ændringsforslag 17.
Hvad angår ændringsforslag 18, glæder Kommissionen sig over Parlamentets støtte til at styrke budgettet til den fælles fiskeripolitik i løbet af forhandlingerne om det finansielle overslag for 2007-2013. Den foreslåede forordning kan pr. definition kun vedtages, når det finansielle overslag forhåbentlig er blevet det. Derfor er det formentlig overflødigt at tilføje en betragtning, som det foreslås i dette ændringsforslag.
Kommissionen er enig i substansen af ændringsforslag 19, men ikke i formen. Småfiskeri som en del af fangstsektoren er allerede repræsenteret i de regionale rådgivende råd i kraft af beslutningen om disse. Således fremmer Kommissionen allerede deres deltagelse i regionale rådgivende råd som fuldgyldige medlemmer.
Forslaget sigter mod at danne en mere gennemskuelig og enkel ramme om udøvelsen af Fællesskabets økonomiske indgreb. Det sigter mod en forbedring af effektiviteten af økonomiske indgreb vedrørende kontrol og håndhævelse inden for indsamling af data og videnskabelig rådgivning, styrkelse af styringen af den fælles fiskeripolitik og området internationale forbindelser og havret.
Lad mig nu gå over til de ændringsforslag, der er stillet til den betænkning, vi har fået forelagt. Kommissionen kan acceptere ændringsforslag 1 og vil fortsat gøre, hvad der er muligt inden for sin kompetence for at arbejde hen imod at sikre bæredygtighed for ressourcerne i tredjelande.
Mens Kommissionen principielt er enig i substansen af ændringsforslag 2, har den vanskeligt ved at acceptere formen for et sådant ændringsforslag. Ændringsforslaget kan få den virkning at begrænse rækkevidden af, hvad der er tænkt som en bred og generel paragraf om det helt afgørende problem med kontrolkapacitet i tredjelande. Desuden planlægger Kommissionen at koncentrere sig om at udvikle fælles mål sammen med tredjelande i stedet for at foreskrive dem i detaljer, hvordan de skal nå disse mål, da forskellige lande har forskellige behov.
Ændringsforslag 3-8 bør overvejes sammen med ændringsforslag 17, eftersom de henviser til mål, der allerede var dækket af Rådets konklusioner af 19. juli 2004 angående fiskeripartnerskaber. Men lovbestemmelserne i denne forordning er ikke det rigtige sted at fremsætte politiske udtalelser. Derfor mener Kommissionen, at en henvisning til disse konklusioner i betragtningerne i forslaget til forordning, som det foreslås i ændringsforslag 17, er den bedste måde, hvorpå man kan medtage disse aspekter, og kan derfor acceptere ændringsforslag 17. Som følge heraf vil det område, der falder ind under ændringsforslag 3-8 blive dækket af denne betragtning.
Eftersom Natura 2000-netværket falder ind under Kommissionens miljøpolitik, kan Kommissionen ikke acceptere ændringsforslag 9 i en forordning, der udelukkende drejer sig om den fælles fiskeripolitik. Men Kommissionen vil sikre sammenhæng mellem den fælles fiskeripolitik og miljømålene.
Af de samme grunde kan Kommissionen ikke acceptere ændringsforslag 10. Inden for rammen af fiskeripartnerskabsaftaler kræver Rådets konklusioner, der blev nævnt tidligere, sammenhæng mellem den fælles fiskeripolitiks mål og målene for andre fællesskabspolitikker såsom miljømålene.
Kommissionen sætter pris på den støtte, Fiskeriudvalget har givet og fortsat giver til de regionale rådgivende råd. Ændringsforslag 11 formulerer klart udvalgets ønske om at lette de regionale rådgivende råds rolle ved at give finansiering uden tidsramme. Kommissionen er villig til at undersøge muligheder for finansiering ud over den nuværende foreskrevne femårige periode, men kan ikke på dette stadium give et løfte, eftersom det ikke ville være i overensstemmelse med den nuværende forordning, der har etableret de regionale rådgivende råd, men denne anmodning kan tages op til overvejelse igen ved første evaluering af rådenes funktion tre år efter deres etablering.
Vedrørende omkostningerne ved at bestille videnskabelig rådgivning betaler Kommissionen allerede uafhængige og troværdige organer for at give videnskabelig rådgivning. De regionale rådgivende råd er velkomne til over for Kommissionen at understrege ethvert behov for videnskabelig rådgivning. Men Kommissionen forbeholder sig retten til at afgøre rimeligheden af en sådan anmodning fra sag til sag og vil føre an i processen med at indhente denne rådgivning."@da2
".
Herr Präsident, zunächst möchte ich der Frau Abgeordneten für ihren Bericht über den Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Rates über finanzielle Maßnahmen der Gemeinschaft zur Durchführung der Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik und im Bereich des Seerechts danken. Die in dieser Verordnung vorgeschlagene Finanzierung wird ein wesentlicher Bestandteil des Pakets der Finanziellen Vorausschau für die Fischerei im Zeitraum 2007-2013 sein. Neben dem Europäischen Fischereifonds bildet diese Verordnung die Rechtsgrundlage für die meisten anderen Ausgaben, die die Weiterführung der Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik ermöglichen, und nach dem ursprünglichen Kommissionsvorschlag für eine Finanzielle Vorausschau umfasst sie für den Siebenjahreszeitraum von 2007-2013 Ausgaben im Wert von über 2,5 Milliarden Euro.
Wenngleich die Kommission dem Inhalt von Änderungsantrag 12 grundsätzlich zustimmt, hat sie Schwierigkeiten mit der Form einer solchen Änderung. Die vorgeschlagene Änderung könnte sich so auswirken, dass sie den breit und allgemein gedachten Anwendungsbereich des Absatzes, der sich mit den Zielen der Partnerschaftsabkommen auf dem Gebiet des Fischereiwesens befasst, einschränkt. Gutes Geld für gute Leistung ist nur einer der Grundsätze, die in den Schlussfolgerungen des Rates vom 19. Juli 2004 im Zusammenhang mit den Partnerschaftsabkommen auf dem Gebiet des Fischereiwesens genannt werden, und er sollte nicht einseitig zu Lasten der anderen im Rat aufgestellten Grundsätze und Ziele betont werden.
Schwierigkeiten sieht die Kommission auch mit der Annahme von Änderungsantrag 13. Die meisten dort genannten Aspekte sind durch die Schlussfolgerungen des Rates zu den Partnerschaftsabkommen auf dem Gebiet des Fischereiwesens oder durch die auf den allgemeinen Haushalt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften anwendbare Finanzierungsverordnung abgedeckt.
Die Kommission stimmt Änderungsantrag 14 zwar inhaltlich zu, nicht aber in der Form. Grundsätzlich ist die Kommission damit einverstanden, auf Anforderung oder für spezielle Bedürfnisse Zusammenfassungen und aggregierte Daten zur Verfügung zu stellen, doch ist zurzeit nicht geplant, diese Daten automatisch in Form einer periodischen Veröffentlichung oder eines Berichts herauszugeben.
Änderungsantrag 15 kann von der Kommission nicht akzeptiert werden, da die Partnerschaftsabkommen auf dem Gebiet des Fischereiwesens im Wesentlichen auf einer kommerziellen Beziehung beruhen. Das Drittland ist eigenständig für die vollständige oder teilweise Verwendung der im Rahmen des Abkommens erzielten Einnahmen zur Unterstützung seiner Fischereipolitik für die gemeinsam mit der Gemeinschaft vereinbarten Zwecke zuständig. Die Vertragsparteien werden die mit dieser Politik erreichten Ergebnisse gemeinsam überprüfen. Allerdings kann die Kommission in diesem Zusammenhang Drittländern ohne deren Einwilligung keine Finanzprüfungen oder Sofortkontrollen aufzwingen.
Aus ähnlichen Gründen vermag die Kommission Änderungsantrag 16 nicht zu akzeptieren. Jedes Partnerschaftsabkommen auf dem Gebiet des Fischereiwesens enthält Bestimmungen zur Auszahlung von Mitteln und auch zur Verwendung des für die Fischereipolitik des Drittlandes vorgesehenen Anteils dieser Mittel. Auf der Grundlage von Indikatoren und Benchmarks werden beide Vertragsparteien die Ergebnisse dieser Politik gemeinsam bewerten und gegebenenfalls die erforderlichen Anpassungen vornehmen. Was jedoch seinen nationalen Haushalt und die Finanzverwaltung angeht, so ist das Drittland souverän.
Wie ich bereits sagte, kann die Kommission Änderungsantrag 17 akzeptieren.
Was Änderungsantrag 18 betrifft, so begrüßt die Kommission die Unterstützung des Parlaments bei der Stärkung des Haushalts für die gemeinsame Fischereipolitik in den Verhandlungen zur Finanziellen Vorausschau 2007-2013. Die vorgeschlagene Verordnung kann per definitionem erst dann verabschiedet werden, wenn, wie ich es erhoffe, Einigung über die Finanzielle Vorausschau besteht. Daher ist die Einfügung einer Erwägung, wie in diesem Änderungsantrag vorgeschlagen, wahrscheinlich überholt.
Die Kommission stimmt Änderungsantrag 19 inhaltlich, aber nicht in der Form zu. Kleinere Fischereiindustrien als Teil des Fischfangsektors gehören bereits per Beschluss über die Regionalbeiräte zu den Mitgliedern dieser Beiräte. Die Kommission fördert somit bereits deren Beteiligung an den Regionalbeiräten als Vollmitglieder.
Mit dem Vorschlag soll ein transparenterer und vereinfachter Rahmen zur Ausführung der Finanzinterventionen der Gemeinschaft geschaffen werden. Er richtet sich auf die Verbesserung der Effektivität von Finanzinterventionen auf dem Gebiet der Kontrolle und Durchsetzung der Vorschriften, im Bereich der Datenerhebung und der wissenschaftlichen Beratung, bei der Stärkung der Verwaltung der Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik und im Bereich der internationalen Beziehungen und des Seerechts.
Lassen Sie mich nunmehr auf die in dem Bericht vorgeschlagenen Änderungsanträge zu sprechen kommen. Die Kommission kann Änderungsantrag 1 akzeptieren und wird weiterhin im Rahmen ihrer Zuständigkeit ihr Möglichstes tun, um auf die Sicherung der Nachhaltigkeit der Ressourcen in Drittländern hinzuwirken.
Während die Kommission dem Inhalt von Änderungsantrag 2 im Grundsatz zustimmt, kann sie die Form einer solchen Änderung nur schwer akzeptieren. Die vorgeschlagene Änderung könnte sich so auswirken, dass sie den breit und allgemein gedachten Anwendungsbereich des Absatzes, der sich mit dem entscheidenden Aspekt der Kontrolle der Kapazitäten von Drittländern befasst, einschränkt. Ferner plant die Kommission, sich auf die Ausarbeitung gemeinsamer Ziele mit Drittländern zu konzentrieren, anstatt ihnen detaillierte Maßnahmen zur Erreichung dieser Ziele vorzuschreiben, denn die verschiedenen Länder haben unterschiedliche Bedürfnisse.
Die Änderungsanträge 3 bis 8 sind im Zusammenhang mit Änderungsantrag 17 zu sehen, da hier Ziele zitiert werden, die bereits durch die Schlussfolgerungen des Rates vom 19. Juli 2004 in Bezug auf Partnerschaftsabkommen auf dem Gebiet der Fischerei abgedeckt sind. Die Rechtsvorschriften dieser Verordnung sind allerdings nicht der rechte Ort für politische Erklärungen. Die Kommission ist daher der Ansicht, dass ein Hinweis auf diese Schlussfolgerungen in den Erwägungen der vorgeschlagenen Verordnung, wie in Änderungsantrag 19 vorgetragen, der geeignetste Weg ist, diese Aspekte einzubeziehen, und kann demzufolge Änderungsantrag 17 akzeptieren. Somit sind die Änderungsanträge 3 bis 8 inhaltlich durch diese Erwägung abgedeckt.
Da das Natura-2000-Netz unter die Umweltpolitik der Gemeinschaft fällt, kann die Kommission die Änderung 9 in einer Verordnung, die ausschließlich die Gemeinsame Fischereipolitik betrifft, nicht akzeptieren. Allerdings wird die Kommission die Kohärenz der Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik und der Umweltziele gewährleisten.
Aus ähnlichen Gründen kann die Kommission Änderungsantrag 10 nicht akzeptieren. Im Rahmen der Partnerschaftsabkommen auf dem Gebiet des Fischereiwesens verlangen die bereits erwähnten Schlussfolgerungen des Rates eine Kohärenz der Ziele der GFP und der Ziele anderer Gemeinschaftspolitiken, beispielsweise der Umweltziele.
Die Kommission nimmt die Unterstützung, die der Fischereiausschuss gegenüber den Regionalbeiräten bewiesen hat und weiterhin beweist, wohlwollend zur Kenntnis. Die vorgeschlagene Änderung 11 zeugt eindeutig von dem Wunsch des Ausschusses, den Regionalbeiräten die Ausführung ihrer Aufgaben durch unbegrenzte Finanzierung zu erleichtern. Während die Kommission bereit ist, Möglichkeiten der Finanzierung über den gegenwärtig abgesteckten Fünfjahreszeitraum hinaus zu erkunden, kann zu diesem Zeitpunkt keine Zusage gemacht werden, da das nicht der derzeitigen Verordnung über die Bildung der Regionalbeiräte entsprechen würde, doch kann dieser Antrag bei der ersten Bewertung der Arbeit der Regionalbeiräte drei Jahre nach ihrer Bildung erneut geprüft werden.
Was die Kosten für die Einholung wissenschaftlicher Gutachten betrifft, so bezahlt die Kommission bereits jetzt unabhängige und glaubwürdige Gremien für solche Gutachten. Gern nimmt die Kommission Hinweise der Regionalbeiräte entgegen, wenn wissenschaftliche Gutachten erforderlich sein sollten. Sie behält sich jedoch das Recht vor, im Einzelfall über die Berechtigung eines solchen Antrags zu entscheiden, und wird das Verfahren zur Einholung eines solchen Gutachtens leiten."@de9
".
Señor Presidente, en primer lugar quisiera dar las gracias a su Señoría por su informe sobre la propuesta de reglamento del Consejo por el que se establecen medidas financieras comunitarias para la aplicación de la política pesquera común y el Derecho del Mar. La financiación propuesta por este reglamento será una parte esencial del paquete de las perspectivas financieras en el sector pesquero para 2007-2013. Junto al Fondo Europeo de Pesca, este reglamento constituye el fundamento jurídico de la mayor parte de los gastos diversos, lo que permite la continuidad de la política pesquera común y, basándose en la propuesta original de la Comisión para las perspectivas financieras, incluirá un gasto de más de 2 500 millones de euros para el septenio de 2007 a 2013.
Aunque la Comisión está de acuerdo en un principio con el contenido sustancial de la enmienda 12, tiene dificultades para aceptar la forma de la misma. La enmienda propuesta podría tener el efecto de limitar el ámbito de aplicación de lo que se ha concebido como un apartado amplio y general que trata los objetivos de los acuerdos de asociación pesqueros. La buena inversión del dinero es solo uno de los principios mencionados en las conclusiones del Consejo de 19 de julio de 2004 con respecto a los acuerdos de asociación pesqueros, y no debería resaltarse en detrimento de los demás principios y objetivos definidos en el Consejo.
La Comisión tiene dificultades para aceptar la enmienda 13. La mayoría de los aspectos mencionados en la enmienda se abordan en las conclusiones del Consejo sobre los acuerdos de asociación pesqueros o en el Reglamento Financiero aplicable al presupuesto general de las Comunidades Europeas.
La Comisión está de acuerdo con el contenido sustancial de la enmienda 14, pero no con su forma. En principio, la Comisión acepta presentar resúmenes y agregaciones de datos recopilados a petición expresa o para necesidades concretas, pero a estas alturas no está previsto que vaya a emitir automáticamente estos datos en una publicación o informe periódico.
La enmienda 15 no es aceptable para la Comisión, ya que los acuerdos de asociación pesqueros se basan esencialmente en una relación comercial. El país tercero es responsable y soberano para gastar sus ingresos conforme al acuerdo, total o parcialmente, en apoyo a su política pesquera para los fines acordados conjuntamente en un enfoque común con la Comunidad. Las partes revisarán conjuntamente los resultados obtenidos con esta política. Sin embargo, en este contexto, la Comisión no puede imponer auditorías financieras y comprobaciones sobre el terreno en terceros países sin el consentimiento de estos.
Por motivos similares, la Comisión no puede aceptar la enmienda 16. Cada acuerdo de asociación pesquero contiene disposiciones sobre el pago de fondos, así como sobre el uso de la parte de estos fondos prevista para la política pesquera del país tercero. Ateniéndose a los indicadores y los criterios de referencia, ambas partes evaluarán conjuntamente los resultados de esta política y, si procede, harán los ajustes necesarios. Sin embargo, en lo que respecta a su presupuesto nacional y su administración financiera, el país tercero es soberano.
Como se ha dicho antes, la Comisión puede aceptar la enmienda 17.
Respecto a la enmienda 18, la Comisión celebra el respaldo del Parlamento al refuerzo del presupuesto para la política pesquera común en el curso de las negociaciones de las perspectivas financieras para 2007-2013. Por definición, el reglamento propuesto solamente puede aprobarse una vez se hayan acordado, como es de esperar, las perspectivas financieras. Por lo tanto, añadir un considerando, tal como se propone en esta enmienda, sea probablemente una idea obsoleta.
La Comisión está de acuerdo con el contenido sustancial de la enmienda 19, pero no con su forma. Las pesquerías pequeñas, que forman parte del sector dedicado a la captura, ya están incluidas como miembros de los consejos consultivos regionales en virtud de la decisión sobre los mismos. Por lo tanto, la Comisión ya promueve su participación en los consejos consultivos regionales como miembros de pleno derecho.
La propuesta pretende crear un marco más transparente y simplificado para la ejecución de las intervenciones financieras comunitarias. Esta pretende mejorar la efectividad de las intervenciones financieras en el campo del control y la aplicación, en el de la recopilación de datos y el asesoramiento científico, en el refuerzo de la gobernanza de la política pesquera común y en el de las relaciones internacionales y el Derecho del Mar.
Permítanme abordar ahora las enmiendas propuestas en el informe que tenemos ante nosotros. La Comisión puede aceptar la enmienda 1 y seguirá haciendo lo que le permitan sus competencias para conseguir que se garantice la sostenibilidad de los recursos en terceros países.
Pese a que la Comisión está de acuerdo en un principio con el contenido de la enmienda 2, tiene dificultades para aceptar la forma en que se presenta. La enmienda propuesta podría tener el efecto de limitar el ámbito de aplicación de lo que se ha concebido como un apartado amplio y general que trata el aspecto crucial de las capacidades de control en terceros países. Además, la Comisión pretende concentrarse en el desarrollo de objetivos comunes en terceros países, en lugar de prescribirles vías detalladas para conseguir que alcancen estos objetivos, ya que cada país tiene necesidades distintas.
Las enmiendas 3 a 8 deberían considerarse conjuntamente con la enmienda 17, dado que mencionan objetivos ya incluidos en las conclusiones del Consejo de 19 de julio de 2004, relativos a los acuerdos de asociación pesqueros. Sin embargo, las disposiciones legales de este reglamento no son el lugar adecuado para las declaraciones políticas. Por lo tanto, la Comisión considera que una referencia a estas conclusiones en los considerandos del reglamento propuesto, conforme a lo planteado por la enmienda 17, es el modo más adecuado para incluir estos aspectos, y por lo tanto puede aceptar dicha enmienda. Por consiguiente, este considerando establecerá el ámbito de aplicación de las enmiendas 3 a 8.
Dado que la red Natura 2000 es competencia de la política ambiental comunitaria, la Comisión no puede aceptar la enmienda 9 en un reglamento que concierne exclusivamente a la política pesquera común. Sin embargo, la Comisión garantizará la coherencia de la política pesquera común con los objetivos ambientales.
Por motivos similares, la Comisión no puede aceptar la enmienda 10. En el marco de los acuerdos de asociación pesqueros, las conclusiones del Consejo antes mencionadas reclaman coherencia entre los objetivos de la PPC y los objetivos de otras políticas comunitarias, como los objetivos ambientales.
La Comisión valora el respaldo que ha mostrado y sigue mostrando la Comisión de Pesca a los consejos consultivos regionales. La enmienda 11 propuesta establece claramente el deseo de la comisión de que se facilite la labor de los consejos consultivos regionales mediante una financiación indefinida. Pese a que la Comisión está dispuesta a explorar opciones de financiación después del período quinquenal actualmente prescrito, a estas alturas no puede contraer un compromiso, ya que esto no se ajustaría al actual reglamento que han establecido los consejos consultivos regionales, pero esta petición puede reconsiderarse en la primera evaluación del funcionamiento de los consejos consultivos regionales tres años después de su establecimiento.
Respecto al coste del dictamen científico, la Comisión ya está pagando a entidades independientes y fiables para que lo elaboren. Se acoge con agrado que los consejos consultivos regionales pongan en conocimiento de la Comisión cualquier necesidad de asesoramiento científico. Sin embargo, la Comisión se reserva el derecho a decidir sobre la justificación de dicha petición caso por caso y dirigirá el proceso de obtención del dictamen."@es20
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, haluan ensiksi kiittää arvoisaa parlamentin jäsentä hänen mietinnöstään, jossa käsitellään ehdotusta neuvoston asetukseksi yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan täytäntöönpanoa ja kansainvälisen merioikeuden alaa koskevista yhteisön rahoitustoimenpiteistä. Tässä asetuksessa ehdotettu rahoitus muodostaa keskeisen osan kalatalousalan vuosien 2007–2013 rahoitusnäkymiä. Euroopan kalatalousrahaston ohella tämä asetus muodostaa oikeusperustan useimmille muille menoille, ja sen ansiosta yhteistä kalastuspolitiikkaa voidaan jatkaa. Asetus perustuu rahoitusnäkymiä koskevaan komission alkuperäiseen ehdotukseen, ja käsittää yli 2,5 miljardin menot seitsemän vuoden ajanjaksolla 2007–2013.
Vaikka komissio hyväksyy periaatteessa tarkistuksen 12 sisällön, sen on vaikea hyväksyä sen muotoilua. Ehdotetulla tarkoituksella supistettaisiin sen kattavan ja yleisen kohdan soveltamisalaa, jota on tarkoitus laajentaa ja joka koskee kalastuskumppanuussopimusten tavoitteita. Kalastuskumppanuussopimuksista 19. heinäkuuta 2004 annetuissa neuvoston päätelmissä mainitaan muitakin periaatteita kuin periaate, jonka mukaan rahoille on saatava vastinetta, eikä tätä periaatetta pitäisi erikseen korostaa muiden neuvoston määrittelemien periaatteiden ja tavoitteiden kustannuksella.
Komission on vaikea hyväksyä tarkistusta 13. Useimmat tarkistuksessa mainitut näkökohdat on katettu joko neuvoston kalastuskumppanuussopimuksista antamilla päätelmillä tai Euroopan yhteisöjen yleiseen talousarvioon sovellettavalla varainhoitoasetuksella.
Komissio hyväksyy tarkistuksen 14 sisällön mutta ei sen muotoilua. Komissio suostuu periaatteessa julkaisemaan tiivistelmiä ja yhdistettyjä tietoja pyynnöstä ja erityistarpeita varten, mutta tässä vaiheessa aikomuksena ei ole antaa automaattisesti tällaista tietoa säännöllisen julkaisun tai raportin muodossa.
Komissio ei voi hyväksyä tarkistusta 15, koska kalastuskumppanuussopimukset perustuvat pohjimmiltaan kaupallisiin suhteisiin. Kolmas maa vastaa itsenäisesti siitä, käytetäänkö sen sopimuksen mukaiset tulot kokonaan tai osittain maan kalastuspolitiikan tukemiseen niiden tavoitteiden mukaisesti, joista on sovittu yhteisön kanssa laaditussa yhteisessä lähestymistavassa. Osapuolet arvioivat yhdessä kalastuspolitiikan tulokset. Komissio ei kuitenkaan voi tässä yhteydessä määrätä tehtäviksi kolmansia maita koskevia rahoitustarkastuksia tai paikan päällä tehtäviä tarkastuksia ilman näiden maiden suostumusta.
Komissio ei voi samoista syistä hyväksyä tarkistusta 16. Kuhunkin kalastuskumppanuussopimukseen sisältyy määräyksiä rahastojen varojen maksamisesta ja siitä, miten näiden rahastojen varoja on tarkoitus käyttää kolmansien maiden kalastuspolitiikassa. Molemmat osapuolet arvioivat yhdessä politiikan tulokset indikaattoreiden ja kriteerien perusteella ja tekevät tarvittaessa välttämättömiä mukautuksia. Kolmas maa hoitaa kuitenkin itsenäisesti kansallista talousarviotaan ja rahoitushallintoaan.
Kuten edellä totesin, komissio ei voi hyväksyä tarkistusta 17.
Tarkistuksen 18 osalta komissio on tyytyväinen parlamentin tukeen, joka koskee yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan määrärahojen lisäämistä kauden 2007–2013 rahoitusnäkymistä käytävissä neuvotteluissa. Ehdotettu asetus voidaan nimensäkin puolesta antaa vasta sen jälkeen, kun rahoitusnäkymät on toivon mukaan hyväksytty. Tämän vuoksi kappale, jota ehdotetaan lisättäväksi asetukseen, on jo luultavasti vanhentunut.
Komissio hyväksyy tarkistuksen 19 sisällön mutta ei sen muotoilua. Alueellisista neuvoa-antavista toimikunnista tehdyn päätöksen nojalla pyyntialalla toimikunnan jäseniin kuuluu jo pienimuotoisen kalastuksen edustajia. Komissio näin ollen jo edistää sitä, että he voivat osallistua täysjäseninä alueellisiin neuvoa-antaviin toimikuntiin.
Ehdotuksella pyritään luomaan entistä avoimempi ja yksinkertaisempi kehys yhteisön rahoitustoimien toteuttamiselle. Sillä pyritään parantamaan rahoitustuen tehokkuutta valvonnan ja täytäntöönpanon, tietojen keruun ja tieteellisten lausuntojen, yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan hallinnon vahvistamisen sekä kansainvälisten suhteiden ja merioikeuden aloilla.
Käsittelen seuraavaksi mietinnössä meille esitettyjä tarkistuksia. Komissio voi hyväksyä tarkistuksen 1 ja se tekeekin toimivaltansa puitteissa kaiken mahdollisen varmistaakseen kalavarojen kestävän hyödyntämisen kolmansissa maissa.
Komissio hyväksyy periaatteessa tarkistuksen 2 sisällön mutta sen on vaikea hyväksyä tarkistuksen muotoilua. Ehdotetulla tarkistuksella supistettaisiin sen kattavan ja yleisen kohdan soveltamisalaa soveltamisalaa, jota on tarkoitus laajentaa ja jossa käsitellään tärkeää asiaa, kolmansien maiden valvontavalmiuksia. Komissio aikoo lisäksi keskittyä kehittämään kolmansien maiden kanssa yhteisiä tavoitteita sen sijaan, että komissio määräisi niille yksityiskohtaiset keinot, joiden avulla tavoitteet voidaan saavuttaa, koska eri mailla on erilaiset tarpeet.
Tarkistuksia 3–8 olisi tarkasteltava yhdessä tarkistuksen 17 kanssa, koska niissä mainitaan tavoitteet, jotka on katettu jo neuvoston 19. heinäkuuta 2004 kalastuskumppanuussopimuksista antamilla päätelmillä. Poliittisten kannanottojen paikka ei kuitenkaan ole tämän asetuksen säännöksissä. Komissio katsoo tämän vuoksi, että tarkistuksessa 17 ehdotettu viittaus näihin päätelmiin on paras tapa ottaa nämä näkökohdat huomioon. Komissio voi näin ollen hyväksyä tarkistuksen 17. Tarkistusten 3–8 sisältö katetaan näin ollen tällä johdanto-osan kappaleella.
Koska Natura 2000 -verkosto kuuluu yhteisön ympäristöpolitiikkaan, komissio ei voi hyväksyä tarkistusta 9 asetukseen, joka koskee ainoastaan kalastuspolitiikkaa. Komissio aikoo kuitenkin varmistaa, että yhteinen kalastuspolitiikka on ympäristötavoitteiden mukaista.
Samoista syistä komissio ei voi hyväksyä tarkistusta 10. Edellä mainitut neuvoston päätelmät edellyttävät kalastuskumppanuussopimusten johdonmukaisuutta yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan tavoitteiden ja yhteisön politiikan muiden tavoitteiden, kuten ympäristötavoitteiden, kanssa.
Komissio pitää arvossa kalatalousvaliokunnan osoittamaa tukea ja kiinnittää edelleen huomiota alueellisiin neuvoa-antaviin toimikuntiin. Ehdotetussa tarkistuksessa 11 ilmaistaan selkeästi valiokunnan toive siitä, että alueellisten neuvoa-antavien toimikuntien tehtäviä helpotettaisiin määräämättömäksi ajaksi myönnettävän rahoituksen avulla. Komissio on valmis tutkimaan rahoitusvaihtoehtoja myös pidemmällä aikavälillä kuin nykyisin vahvistetulla viisivuotiskaudella, mutta tässä vaiheessa ei voida tehdä maksusitoumuksia, koska se olisi vastoin nykyistä asetusta, jolla alueelliset neuvoa-antavat toimikunnat on perustettu. Tätä pyyntöä voidaan kuitenkin tarkastella uudelleen alueellisten neuvoa-antavien toimikuntien toiminnan ensimmäisessä arvioinnissa, joka tehdään kolme vuotta niiden perustamisen jälkeen.
Mitä tulee tieteellisten lausuntojen antamisesta aiheutuviin kustannuksiin, komissio maksaa jo nyt riippumattomille ja luotettaville elimille tieteellisten lausuntojen antamisesta. Alueelliset neuvoa-antavat toimikunnat saavat vapaasti ilmoittaa komissiolle mahdollisesta tieteellisten lausuntojen tarpeesta. Komissio varaa kuitenkin oikeuden päättää tapauskohtaisesti, ovatko tällaiset pyynnöt perusteltuja, ja komissio johtaa lausuntojen hakuprosessia."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout d’abord remercier Mme Stihler pour son rapport sur la proposition de règlement du Conseil portant mesures financières communautaires relatives à la mise en œuvre de la politique commune de la pêche et au droit de la mer. Le financement proposé par ce règlement sera un élément essentiel des perspectives financières pour la pêche pour la période 2007-2013. Avec le Fonds européen pour la pêche, ce règlement représente le cadre juridique de la plupart des autres dépenses permettant la poursuite de la politique commune de la pêche et, sur la base de la proposition initiale de la Commission en matière de perspectives financières, il couvrira plus de 2,5 milliards d’euros de dépenses pour la période de sept ans s’étalant de 2007 à 2013.
Si la Commission est d’accord en principe sur la substance de l’amendement 12, elle peut difficilement accepter la forme de cet amendement. En effet, l’amendement tel qu’il est proposé pourrait avoir pour effet de restreindre la portée de ce qui a été conçu comme un important paragraphe général traitant des objectifs des accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche. L’optimisation des ressources n’est que l’un des principes mentionnés dans les conclusions du Conseil du 19 juillet 2004 concernant les accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche, et elle ne doit pas être mise en lumière individuellement au détriment des autres principes et objectifs définis au sein du Conseil.
La Commission peut difficilement accepter l’amendement 13. La plupart des aspects mentionnés dans cet amendement sont couverts soit par les conclusions du Conseil sur les accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche, soit par le règlement financier applicable au budget général des Communautés européennes.
La Commission est d’accord sur la substance de l’amendement 14, mais pas sur sa forme. En principe, la Commission est d’accord pour fournir des résumés et des données agrégées des données collectées, sur demande ou pour des besoins spécifiques, mais à ce stade il n’est pas prévu de publier automatiquement ces données sous la forme d’une publication ou d’un rapport périodique.
La Commission ne peut accepter l’amendement 15, car les accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche sont par essence basés sur une relation commerciale. Le pays tiers est responsable et souverain en ce qui concerne la dépense de ses recettes au titre de l’accord, en tout ou en partie, pour soutenir sa politique de pêche aux fins conjointement convenues dans le cadre d’une approche commune avec la Communauté. Les parties examineront conjointement les résultats obtenus grâce à cette politique. Toutefois, dans ce contexte, la Commission ne peut imposer des audits financiers ni des contrôles sur place aux pays tiers sans leur accord.
Pour des raisons similaires, la Commission ne peut accepter l’amendement 16. Chaque accord de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche contient des dispositions sur le paiement des fonds, ainsi que sur l’utilisation de la part de ces fonds réservée à la politique de la pêche du pays tiers. Sur la base d’indicateurs et de points de référence, les deux parties évalueront conjointement les résultats de cette politique et, le cas échéant, apporteront les ajustements nécessaires. Toutefois, le pays tiers est souverain en ce qui concerne son budget national et son administration financière.
Comme il a été dit auparavant, la Commission peut accepter l’amendement 17.
En ce qui concerne l’amendement 18, la Commission apprécie le soutien du Parlement au renforcement du budget pour la politique commune de la pêche lors des négociations sur les perspectives financières 2007-2013. Le règlement proposé, par définition, ne pourra être adopté que lorsqu’un accord aura été obtenu sur les perspectives financières, ce que j’espère. Par conséquent, ajouter un paragraphe, comme proposé dans cet amendement, est probablement superflu.
La Commission est d’accord sur la substance de l’amendement 19, mais pas sur la forme. Faisant partie du secteur de la capture, les petits pêcheurs sont déjà membres des CCR, en vertu de la décision les instituant. Ainsi, la Commission promeut déjà leur participation aux CCR en tant que membres à part entière.
La proposition vise à définir un cadre simplifié et plus transparent pour l’exécution des interventions financières de la Communauté. Elle est axée sur l’amélioration de l’efficacité des interventions financières dans le domaine du contrôle et de l’exécution, de la collecte de données et d’avis scientifique, du renforcement de la gouvernance de la politique commune de la pêche, et des relations internationales et du droit de la mer.
J’en viens maintenant aux amendements proposés dans le rapport. La Commission peut accepter l’amendement 1 et continuera à faire de son mieux dans la mesure de ses compétences pour garantir la durabilité des ressources dans les pays tiers.
Si la Commission est d’accord en principe sur la substance de l’amendement 2, elle peut difficilement accepter la forme de cet amendement. En effet, l’amendement tel qu’il est proposé pourrait avoir pour effet de restreindre la portée de ce qui a été conçu comme un important paragraphe général traitant de l’aspect crucial des capacités de contrôle des pays tiers. En outre, considérant que les besoins sont différents selon les pays, la Commission prévoit de se concentrer sur l’élaboration d’objectifs communs avec les pays tiers, plutôt que de leur prescrire des moyens détaillés d’atteindre ces objectifs.
Les amendements 3 à 8 devraient être considérés en même temps que l’amendement 17, puisqu’ils font référence à des objectifs qui étaient déjà couverts dans les conclusions du Conseil du 19 juillet 2004, concernant les accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche. Toutefois, les dispositions juridiques de ce règlement ne constituent pas un cadre approprié pour faire des déclarations politiques. La Commission estime, par conséquent, qu’une référence à ces conclusions dans les considérants du règlement proposé, tel que suggéré par l’amendement 17, est la manière la plus appropriée d’inclure ces aspects et est donc en mesure d’accepter l’amendement 17. Par suite, le contenu des amendements 3 à 8 sera couvert par ce considérant.
Comme le réseau Natura 2000 relève de la politique environnementale de la Communauté, la Commission ne peut accepter l’amendement 9 dans un règlement qui concerne exclusivement la politique commune de la pêche. Toutefois, la Commission veillera à assurer la cohérence de la politique commune de la pêche avec les objectifs environnementaux.
Pour des raisons similaires, la Commission ne peut accepter l’amendement 10. Dans le cadre des accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche, les conclusions du Conseil mentionnées plus haut exigent qu’il y ait cohérence entre les objectifs de la PCP et les objectifs des autres politiques communautaires, tels que les objectifs environnementaux.
La Commission apprécie le soutien que la commission de la pêche a manifesté à l’égard des conseils consultatifs régionaux et qu’elle continue à leur apporter. L’amendement 11 proposé exprime clairement le désir de la commission de voir le rôle des conseils consultatifs régionaux facilité par un financement indéterminé. Si la Commission est désireuse d’étudier des options de financement s’étendant au-delà de la période de cinq ans actuellement prescrite, aucun engagement ne peut être pris à ce stade, car cela ne serait pas conforme au règlement actuel qui a institué les conseils consultatifs régionaux, mais cette requête pourra être reconsidérée lors de la première évaluation du fonctionnement des conseils consultatifs régionaux trois ans après leur création.
En ce qui concerne le coût des demandes d’avis scientifiques, la Commission paie déjà des organismes indépendants et fiables pour les fournir. La Commission invite les CCR à lui faire connaître tout besoin d’avis scientifique. Quoi qu’il en soit, la Commission se réserve le droit de décider au cas par cas du caractère justifié d’une telle requête et contrôlera l’obtention des avis."@fr8
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, innanzi tutto vorrei ringraziare l’onorevole Stihler per la sua relazione sulla proposta di un regolamento del Consiglio che istituisce un’azione finanziaria della Comunità per l’attuazione della politica comune della pesca e in materia di diritto del mare. Il finanziamento proposto dal regolamento in questione costituirà una parte essenziale del pacchetto di prospettive finanziare per la pesca relative al periodo 2007-2013. Insieme al Fondo europeo per la pesca, tale regolamento rappresenta la base giuridica per gran parte delle altre spese che consentono di portare avanti la politica comune della pesca e, in base alla proposta originaria della Commissione concernente le prospettive finanziarie, coprirà più di 2,5 miliardi di euro di spesa nel periodo di sette anni dal 2007 al 2013.
Benché in linea di principio la Commissione concordi con la sostanza dell’emendamento n. 12, ha qualche difficoltà ad accettarne la forma. L’emendamento proposto poterebbe avere l’effetto di restringere la portata di quello che è stato concepito come un paragrafo ampio e generale riguardante gli obiettivi degli accordi di partenariato nel settore della pesca. La redditività è soltanto uno dei principi menzionati nelle conclusioni del Consiglio del 19 luglio 2004 concernenti gli accordi di partenariato nel settore della pesca, e non dovrebbe essere enfatizzato singolarmente a discapito degli altri principi e obiettivi definiti in sede di Consiglio.
La Commissione ha difficoltà ad accettare l’emendamento n. 13. La maggior parte degli aspetti in esso contenuti sono trattati nelle conclusioni del Consiglio sugli accordi di partenariato nel settore della pesca, oppure nel regolamento finanziario applicabile al bilancio generale delle Comunità europee.
La Commissione concorda con il contenuto dell’emendamento n. 14, ma non con la forma. In linea di massima, la Commissione accetta di fornire – su richiesta o per fini specifici – sintesi e dati aggregati, ma in questo momento non è prevista la trasmissione automatica di questi dati sotto forma di una pubblicazione periodica o di una relazione.
L’emendamento n. 15 non può essere accettato dalla Commissione, in quanto gli accordi di partenariato nel settore della pesca si basano essenzialmente su un rapporto commerciale. Il paese terzo è responsabile e libero di spendere gli importi concessi ai sensi dell’accordo, in tutto o in parte, a sostegno della propria politica della pesca per gli scopi convenuti congiuntamente in un approccio comune con la Comunità. Le parti sottoporranno congiuntamente a revisione i risultati ottenuti mediante tale politica. Tuttavia, in questo contesto, la Commissione non può imporre controlli finanziari o verifiche
su paesi terzi senza il loro consenso.
Per ragioni analoghe, la Commissione respinge l’emendamento n. 16. Ogni accordo di partenariato nel settore della pesca contiene disposizioni riguardanti il pagamento di fondi, nonché l’impiego della quota di tali fondi prevista per la politica della pesca del paese terzo. Sulla base di indicatori e di valori di riferimento, entrambe le parti valuteranno insieme i risultati di tale politica e, ove opportuno, apporteranno i necessari adeguamenti. Per quanto riguarda il bilancio nazionale e l’amministrazione finanziaria, la competenza spetta esclusivamente al paese terzo.
Come già anticipato, la Commissione non può accogliere l’emendamento n. 17.
Per quel che concerne l’emendamento n. 18, la Commissione accoglie con favore il sostegno del Parlamento al fine di incrementare il bilancio per la politica comune della pesca nel corso dei negoziati sulle prospettive finanziarie 2007–2013. Il regolamento proposto, per definizione, può essere adottato solamente una volta che siano state, si auspica, approvate le prospettive finanziarie. Di conseguenza, l’aggiunta di un considerando, come proposto da tale emendamento, è probabilmente inutile.
La Commissione concorda sulla sostanza dell’emendamento n. 19, ma ne respinge la forma. Le attività di pesca artigianali, come parte del settore della cattura, sono già membri dei CCR in virtù della decisione sui medesimi. Pertanto, la Commissione promuove già la loro partecipazione ai CCR in qualità di membri a pieno titolo.
L’obiettivo della proposta consiste nel creare un quadro più trasparente e semplificato per l’esecuzione degli interventi finanziari della Comunità. Essa intende migliorare l’efficacia degli interventi finanziari nel campo del controllo e dell’esecuzione, nell’area della raccolta dei dati e della consulenza scientifica, nel rafforzamento della gestione politica della PCP, e nell’ambito delle relazioni internazionali e del diritto del mare.
Vorrei ora passare a esaminare gli emendamenti proposti nella relazione in esame. La Commissione può accettare l’emendamento n. 1 e continuerà a fare tutto il possibile – nell’ambito delle proprie competenze – per assicurare la sostenibilità delle risorse nei paesi terzi.
In linea di principio la Commissione concorda con la sostanza dell’emendamento n. 2, ma ha qualche difficoltà ad accettarne la forma. L’emendamento proposto potrebbe avere l’effetto di restringere la portata di quello che è stato concepito come un paragrafo ampio e generale riguardante l’aspetto cruciale della capacità di controllo dei paesi terzi. Inoltre, la Commissione ha in animo di impegnarsi a sviluppare obiettivi comuni con i paesi terzi, invece di prescrivere loro modalità dettagliate per conseguire tali obiettivi, visto che paesi diversi hanno esigenze diverse.
Gli emendamenti dal n. 3 al n. 8 dovrebbero essere considerati unitamente all’emendamento n. 17, in quanto menzionano obiettivi già trattati nelle conclusioni del Consiglio del 19 luglio 2004 in materia di accordi di partenariato nel settore della pesca. Tuttavia, le disposizioni di legge di questo regolamento non sono il luogo adatto a dichiarazioni politiche. La Commissione reputa pertanto che il modo più opportuno di inserire tali aspetti consista nel fare riferimento alle suddette conclusioni nei considerando del regolamento proposto, come suggerisce l’emendamento n. 17, che la Commissione pertanto accoglie. Di conseguenza, tale considerando comprenderebbe anche gli aspetti contenuti negli emendamenti dal n. 3 al n. 8.
Poiché la rete Natura 2000 rientra nella politica comunitaria in materia di ambiente, la Commissione non può accettare l’emendamento n. 9 in un regolamento che riguarda esclusivamente la politica comune della pesca. La Commissione si adopererà tuttavia per assicurare la coerenza tra politica comune della pesca e obiettivi ambientali.
Per ragioni analoghe, la Commissione non può accettare l’emendamento n. 10. Nel quadro degli accordi di partenariato nel settore della pesca, le conclusioni del Consiglio si riferivano alla coerenza precedentemente auspicata tra gli obiettivi della PCP e i fini di altre politiche comunitarie, ad esempio quella in materia di ambiente.
La Commissione apprezza il sostegno che la commissione per la pesca ha fornito e continua a fornire ai consigli consultivi regionali. L’emendamento n. 11 mostra chiaramente il desiderio della commissione parlamentare di agevolare il ruolo dei consigli consultivi regionali mediante finanziamenti indefiniti. Se da una parte la Commissione è disposta a valutare possibili opzioni di finanziamento successive al periodo quinquennale attualmente previsto, in questa fase non è possibile assumere un impegno, in quanto non sarebbe in linea con il regolamento attuale che istituisce i consigli consultivi regionali; tale richiesta potrà tuttavia essere riconsiderata al momento della prima valutazione del funzionamento dei consigli consultivi regionali tre anni dopo la loro istituzione.
Per quanto riguarda il costo associato all’acquisizione di pareri scientifici, la Commissione sta già pagando organismi indipendenti e affidabili, chiamati a fornire consulenze scientifiche. I CCR possono ovviamente far presente alla Commissione eventuali esigenze di consulenza scientifica. La Commissione si riserva tuttavia il diritto di decidere caso per caso in merito alla fondatezza di tali richieste e guiderà tale processo di ottenimento della consulenza."@it12
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@lt14
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@lv13
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, om te beginnen wil ik de rapporteur bedanken voor haar verslag over het voorstel voor een verordening van de Raad houdende communautaire financieringsmaatregelen voor de tenuitvoerlegging van het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid en op het gebied van het zeerecht. De financiering die op basis van deze verordening wordt voorgesteld, zal een essentieel onderdeel vormen van het pakket inzake de financiële vooruitzichten voor de visserij in de periode 2007-2013. Deze verordening vormt de wettelijke basis voor het merendeel van de overige uitgaven voor de continuering van het visserijbeleid, naast de uitgaven die via het Europees Visserijfonds worden besteed. Verder voorziet de verordening op basis van het oorspronkelijke voorstel van de Commissie in uitgaven ter waarde van meer dan 2,5 miljard euro in de zeven jaar van de periode 2007-2013.
In principe is de Commissie het eens met de boodschap van amendement 12, maar niet met de vorm. Het ontwerpamendement zou tot gevolg kunnen hebben dat de werkingssfeer wordt ingeperkt van wat bedoeld is als een algemene paragraaf over de doelstellingen van de partnerschapsovereenkomsten op visserijgebied. Een gunstige kosten-batenverhouding is slechts één van de beginselen die vermeld staan in de conclusies van de Raad van 19 juli 2004 betreffende partnerschapsovereenkomsten op visserijgebied. Dit beginsel dient niet zodanig te worden onderstreept dat de andere beginselen en doelstellingen van de Raad ondergesneeuwd raken.
Amendement 13 is voor de Commissie moeilijk te aanvaarden. De meeste aspecten in het amendement worden bestreken door de conclusies van de Raad inzake partnerschapsovereenkomsten op visserijgebied of door het Financieel Reglement van toepassing op de algemene begroting van de Europese Gemeenschappen.
De Commissie is het eens met de boodschap van amendement 14, maar niet met de vorm. In principe is de Commissie het ermee eens dat zij overzichten en globale data op verzoek of voor specifieke behoeften openbaar maakt, maar het is op dit moment niet gepland om deze data te verstrekken in de vorm van een periodiek document of verslag.
Amendement 15 kan de Commissie niet aanvaarden, omdat partnerschapsovereenkomsten op visserijgebied in essentie een commerciële basis hebben. Bij het derde land berusten de verantwoordelijkheid en bevoegdheid voor de gehele of gedeeltelijke besteding van de middelen uit hoofde van de overeenkomst ter ondersteuning van het nationaal visserijbeleid voor de doeleinden die in het kader van een gezamenlijke aanpak met de Gemeenschap zijn overeengekomen. De partijen zullen de resultaten van dit beleid gezamenlijk evalueren. In deze context mag de Commissie echter niet zonder toestemming van het derde land financiële audits en controles ter plaatse uitvoeren.
Om soortgelijke redenen kan de Commissie amendement 16 niet aanvaarden. Iedere partnerschapsovereenkomst op visserijgebied omvat bepalingen over de uitkering van bedragen en over het gebruik van het deel daarvan dat voor het visserijbeleid van het derde land is uitgetrokken. Op basis van indicatoren en benchmarks zullen de partijen de resultaten van dit beleid gezamenlijk evalueren en zo nodig wijzigingen aanbrengen. De bevoegdheden met betrekking tot de nationale begroting en financiële administratie berusten evenwel bij het derde land.
Zoals gezegd kan de Commissie amendement 17 aanvaarden.
Wat amendement 18 betreft, is de Commissie ermee ingenomen dat het Parlement zich uitspreekt voor het optrekken van de begroting voor het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid in het kader van de onderhandelingen over de financiële vooruitzichten voor de periode 2007-2013. De ontwerpverordening kan per definitie enkel worden aangenomen zodra de financiële vooruitzichten zijn goedgekeurd, wat hopelijk zal gebeuren. Het voorstel in dit amendement voor de toevoeging van een overweging is dus waarschijnlijk overbodig geworden.
De Commissie is het eens met de boodschap van amendement 19, maar niet met de vorm. Krachtens het RAR-besluit wordt de kleinschalige visserij als onderdeel van de visserijsector reeds door RAR-leden vertegenwoordigd. De Commissie promoot dus al een volwaardig lidmaatschap van deze vertegenwoordigers in de RAR's.
Het voorstel beoogt een transparanter en eenvoudiger kader te scheppen voor de uitvoering van financiële interventies door de Gemeenschap teneinde de doelmatigheid van financiële interventies te verbeteren op het gebied van controle en handhaving, gegevensverzameling en wetenschappelijk advies, een beter bestuur van het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid, en de internationale betrekkingen en het zeerecht.
Dan nu over naar de ontwerpamendementen in het onderhavige verslag. De Commissie kan amendement 1 aanvaarden en zij zal binnen haar bevoegdheden al het mogelijke doen om de visserijhulpbronnen in de wateren van derde landen duurzaam te maken.
In principe is de Commissie het eens met de boodschap van amendement 2, maar niet met de vorm. Het ontwerpamendement zou tot gevolg kunnen hebben dat de werkingssfeer wordt ingeperkt van wat bedoeld is als een algemene paragraaf over het belangrijke aspect betreffende de controlecapaciteiten van derde landen. Daarnaast heeft de Commissie zich voorgenomen zich te concentreren op de ontwikkeling van gemeenschappelijke doelstellingen met derde landen, in plaats van ze gedetailleerde maatregelen te dicteren om de doelen te bereiken. Verschillende landen hebben immers verschillende behoeften.
De amendementen 3 tot en met 8 moeten we zien in samenhang met amendement 17, omdat er doelen in worden geciteerd uit de conclusies van de Raad van 19 juli 2004 over partnerschapsovereenkomsten op visserijgebied. Deze verordening met haar wettelijke bepalingen is evenwel niet de juiste plaats voor politieke verklaringen. De Commissie is derhalve van mening dat een verwijzing naar deze conclusies in de overwegingen van de voorgestelde verordening, zoals die wordt geopperd met amendement 17, de beste manier is om deze aspecten te integreren en daarom aanvaard de Commissie amendement 17. Het gevolg is dat de inhoud van de amendementen 3 tot en met 8 door deze overweging zullen worden bestreken.
Het Natura 2000-netwerk valt onder het communautaire milieubeleid. De Commissie kan amendement 9 niet accepteren in een verordening die uitsluitend het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid aangaat. Niettemin waarborgt de Commissie de coherentie tussen het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid en de milieudoelstellingen.
Om dezelfde redenen kan de Commissie amendement 10 niet aanvaarden. In het kader van de partnerschapsovereenkomsten op visserijgebied die ter sprake kwamen in voornoemde conclusies van de Raad, is coherentie nodig tussen de doelen van het GVB en die van andere communautaire beleidsterreinen
milieudoelstellingen bijvoorbeeld.
De Commissie waardeert de onverminderde steun van de Commissie visserij voor de regionale adviesraden. In ontwerpamendement 11 komt duidelijk de wens van deze commissie tot uiting om de taken van de regionale adviesraden te vergemakkelijken door middel van niet nader genoemde financiering. De Commissie is bereid zich te buigen over financieringsmogelijkheden voor de periode na de voorgeschreven vijf jaar, maar een toezegging kan zij in dit stadium niet doen, omdat zulks niet strookt met de bestaande verordening ter oprichting van de regionale adviesraden. Het verzoek kan evenwel worden heroverwogen als het functioneren van de regionale adviesraden drie jaar na hun oprichting wordt geëvalueerd.
Ten aanzien van de kosten voor het inwinnen van wetenschappelijk advies kan ik u mededelen dat de Commissie onafhankelijke en gereputeerde instellingen betaalt voor het verstrekken van wetenschappelijk advies. RAR's zijn welkom om bij de Commissie de eventuele noodzaak van wetenschappelijk advies te komen toelichten. De Commissie behoudt zich echter het recht voor om per geval een besluit te nemen wat betreft de rechtvaardiging van een dergelijk verzoek. De Commissie zal leiding geven aan het proces voor de inwinning van dergelijk advies."@nl3
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, antes de mais, gostaria de agradecer à senhora deputada o seu relatório sobre a proposta de regulamento do Conselho que estabelece medidas financeiras comunitárias relativas à execução da política comum da pesca e ao direito do mar. O financiamento proposto por este regulamento será um elemento essencial do pacote das Perspectivas Financeiras dedicado às pescas para 2007-2013. Este regulamento representa, juntamente com o Fundo Europeu para as Pescas (FEP), a base jurídica para a maioria das outras despesas que permitirão a prossecução da política comum das pescas e cobrirá, com base na proposta original da Comissão para as Perspectivas Financeiras, despesas num valor de mais de 2,5 mil milhões de euros no período de sete anos de 2007-2013.
Embora a Comissão concorde, em princípio com o conteúdo da alteração 12, tem dificuldades em aceitar a formulação da mesma. A alteração proposta poderia ter como efeito a restrição do âmbito de aplicação daquele que se destinava a ser um número abrangente e genérico relativo aos aspectos essenciais do controlo das capacidades dos países. Um bom retorno do investimento é apenas um dos princípios referidos nas conclusões do Conselho de 19 de Julho de 2004 no que respeita aos acordos de parceria no domínio das pescas, não devendo ser salientado de forma isolada em detrimento de outros princípios e objectivos definidos no Conselho.
A Comissão tem dificuldades em aceitar a alteração 13. A maioria dos aspectos mencionados na alteração estão cobertos ou pelas conclusões do Conselho relativas as acordos de parceria no domínio das pescas ou pelo Regulamento Financeiro aplicável ao orçamento geral das Comunidades Europeias.
A Comissão concorda com o conteúdo da alteração 14, mas não com a sua redacção. Em princípio, a Comissão concorda com a divulgação de resumos e de dados autorizados da informação recolhida, a pedido ou para fins específicos, contudo, não está previsto, de momento, divulgar esses dados automaticamente sob a forma de uma publicação ou relatório periódicos.
A alteração 15 não pode ser aceite pela Comissão, uma vez que os acordos de parceria no domínio das pescas se baseiam, na sua essência, numa relação comercial. O país terceiro é responsável e soberano quanto à decisão de empregar as receitas obtidas a coberto do acordo, total ou parcialmente, no apoio à sua política de pescas para efeitos da consecução dos objectivos acordados conjuntamente numa abordagem comum com a Comunidade. As partes procederão em conjunto à revisão dos resultados obtidos por esta política. No entanto, neste contexto, a Comissão não pode impor auditorias financeiras ou controlos no local a países terceiros sem o seu consentimento.
Por razões idênticas, a Comissão não pode aceitar a alteração 16. Cada um dos acordos de parceria no domínio das pescas contém disposições sobre o pagamento dos fundos, bem como sobre a utilização da parte desses fundos prevista para a política de pesca do país terceiro. Com base em indicadores e valores de referência, ambas as partes avaliarão em conjunto os resultados dessa política e, sempre que necessário, farão os necessários ajustamentos. No entanto, no que se refere ao orçamento nacional e administração financeira, o país terceiro é soberano.
Como disse, a Comissão pode aceitar a alteração 17.
No que respeita à alteração 18, a Comissão congratula-se com o apoio dado pelo Parlamento ao reforço do orçamento da política comum das pescas durante as negociações das Perspectivas Financeiras para 2007–2013. O Regulamento proposto só poderá, por definição, ser adoptado uma vez que as Perspectivas Financeiras tenham sido, assim os esperamos, acordadas. Por conseguinte, acrescentar um considerando, tal como proposto nessa nesta alteração, será provavelmente extemporâneo.
A Comissão concorda com a substância da alteração 19, mas não com a sua redacção. A pesca de pequena escala, como parte do sector pesqueiro, está já representada nos CCR por via de uma decisão dos CCR. Deste modo, a Comissão já promove a sua participação dos seus representantes nos CCR como membros de pleno direito.
A proposta visa proporcionar um quadro mais transparente e simplificado para a execução das intervenções financeiras da Comunidade. Está orientada para a melhoria da eficácia das intervenções financeiras nos domínios do controlo e execução, da recolha de dados e pareceres científicos, do reforço da governança da política comum das pescas e das relações internacionais e do direito do mar.
Permitam-me que passe agora às alterações que apresentaram no relatório em apreço. A Comissão pode aceitar a alteração 1, e continuará a fazer o que for possível no âmbito das suas competências com vista a assegurar a sustentabilidade dos recursos dos países terceiros.
Embora a Comissão concorde, em princípio, com o conteúdo da alteração 2, tem dificuldades em aceitar a redacção da mesma. A alteração proposta poderia ter como efeito a restrição do âmbito de aplicação daquele que se destinava a ser um número abrangente e genérico, relativo aos aspectos essenciais do controlo das capacidades dos países terceiros. Para além disso, a Comissão tenciona concentrar-se no desenvolvimento de objectivos comuns com os países terceiros, em vez de lhes prescrever meios pormenorizados sobre a forma como podem conseguir esses objectivos, uma vez que países diferentes têm necessidades diferentes.
As alterações 3 a 8 deverão ser consideradas em conjunto com a alteração 17, uma vez que citam objectivos que estão já abrangidos nas conclusões do Conselho de 19 de Julho de 2004, sobre os acordos de parceria no domínio das pescas. No entanto, esse tipo de declarações políticas não tem cabimento no articulado deste Regulamento. Por conseguinte, a Comissão considera que a introdução de uma referência às referidas conclusões nos considerandos da proposta de resolução, como proposto na alteração 17, é a forma mais apropriada de incluir estes aspectos, podendo, por isso aceitar a alteração 17. Assim, o âmbito das alterações 3 a 8 ficará coberto por esse considerando.
Uma vez que a rede Natura 2000 se insere no âmbito da política ambiental da comunidade, a Comissão não pode aceitar a alteração 9 num regulamento que diz exclusivamente respeito à política comum das pescas. A Comissão assegurar-se-á, no entanto, da coerência entre a política comum das pescas e os objectivos ambientais.
Por razões idênticas, a Comissão não pode aceitar a alteração 10. As supramencionadas conclusões do Conselho exigem, no âmbito dos acordos de parceria no domínio das pescas, que haja coerência entre os objectivos da PCP e das outras políticas comunitárias, entre os quais os objectivos ambientais.
A Comissão aprecia o apoio que a Comissão das Pescas tem demonstrado e continua a demonstrar relativamente aos Conselhos Consultivos Regionais. A alteração 11 proposta manifesta claramente o desejo da comissão de ver o papel dos Conselhos Consultivos Regionais facilitado através de um financiamento indefinido. Apesar de a Comissão estar disposta a estudar opções de financiamento para além do período de cinco anos actualmente previsto, entende que não pode ser assumido qualquer compromisso, nesta fase, uma vez que não seria consentâneo com o actual regulamento que institui os Conselhos Consultivos Regionais. Porém, este pedido poderá ser novamente analisado aquando da primeira avaliação do funcionamento dos Conselhos Consultivos Regionais, três anos após a sua criação.
Quanto às despesas incorridas com os pareceres científicos, a Comissão paga já a entidades independentes e credíveis para que forneçam esses pareceres. OS CCR são convidados a comunicar à Comissão qualquer necessidade de pareceres científicos. No entanto, a Comissão reserva-se o direito de decidir, casuisticamente, sobre a bondade da justificação desse pedido e conduzirá o processo de obtenção desses pareceres."@pt17
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@sk18
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable Member for her report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea. The funding proposed by this regulation will be an essential part of the fisheries financial perspectives package for 2007-2013. Next to the European Fisheries Fund, this regulation represents the legal basis for most other expenditure allowing the continuation of the common fisheries policy and, based on the Commission’s original proposal for a financial perspective, it will cover more than EUR 2.5 billion worth of spending in the seven year period from 2007-2013.
Although the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 12, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the objectives for fisheries partnership agreements. Value for money is just one of the principles mentioned in the Council conclusions of 19 July 2004 regarding fisheries partnership agreements, and it should not be highlighted individually to the detriment of the other principles and objectives defined in the Council.
The Commission has difficulty in accepting Amendment 13. Most of the aspects mentioned in the amendment are covered either by the Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements, or by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 14, but not on the form. In principle, the Commission agrees to provide summaries and aggregations of the collected data on request or for specific needs, but it is not planned at this point automatically to issue this data in the form of a periodic publication or report.
Amendment 15 cannot be accepted by the Commission, as fisheries partnership agreements are in essence based on a commercial relationship. The third country is responsible for and sovereign to spend its revenue under the agreement, in whole or in part, in support of its fisheries policy for the purposes jointly agreed in a common approach with the Community. The parties will jointly review the results obtained by this policy. However, in this context, the Commission cannot impose financial audits or on-the-spot checks on third countries without their agreement.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 16. Each fisheries partnership agreement contains provisions on the payment of funds, as well as on the use of the share of these funds foreseen for the fisheries policy of the third country. On the basis of indicators and benchmarks, both parties will jointly evaluate the results of this policy and, where appropriate, will make the necessary adjustments. As regards its national budget and financial administration, however, the third country is sovereign.
As said before, the Commission can accept Amendment 17.
Concerning Amendment 18, the Commission welcomes the support from Parliament to reinforce the budget for the common fisheries policy in the course of the negotiations on the 2007–2013 financial perspective. The proposed regulation, by definition, can be adopted only once the financial perspective has, hopefully, been agreed. Therefore, adding a recital, as proposed in this amendment, is probably obsolete.
The Commission agrees on the substance of Amendment 19, but not on the form. Small-scale fisheries, as part of the catching sector, are already included as RAC members by virtue of the RAC decision. Thus the Commission already promotes their participation in RACs as full members.
The proposal aims to provide a more transparent and simplified framework for the execution of Community financial interventions. It is geared towards improving the effectiveness of financial interventions in the field of control and enforcement, in the area of data collection and scientific advice, in the strengthening of the governance of the common fisheries policy, and in the area of international relations and the Law of the Sea.
Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in the report before us. The Commission can accept Amendment 1 and will continue to do what is possible within its competence to work towards ensuring the sustainability of the resources in third countries.
Whereas the Commission is in agreement in principle on the substance of Amendment 2, it has difficulty accepting the form of such an amendment. The proposed amendment could have the effect of restricting the scope of what is designed to be a broad and general paragraph dealing with the crucial aspect of control capacities of third counties. Furthermore, the Commission plans to concentrate on developing common objectives with third countries, rather than prescribing to them detailed means as to how to get to those objectives as different countries have different needs.
Amendments 3 to 8 should be considered together with Amendment 17, since they quote objectives which were already covered in the Council’s conclusions of 19 July 2004, regarding fisheries partnership agreements. However, the legal provisions of this regulation are not the right place for policy statements. The Commission therefore considers that a reference to these conclusions in the recitals of the proposed regulation, as proposed by Amendment 17, is the most appropriate way to include these aspects and can therefore accept Amendment 17. As a consequence, the scope of Amendments 3 to 8 will be covered through this recital.
Since the Natura 2000 network falls under the Community’s environmental policy, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 9 in a regulation which exclusively concerns the common fisheries policy. The Commission will, however, ensure coherence of the common fisheries policy with environmental objectives.
For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 10. In the framework of fisheries partnership agreements, the Council conclusions referred to earlier require coherence between the objectives of the CFP and the objectives of other Community policies such as environmental objectives.
The Commission appreciates the support the Committee on Fisheries has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate towards the regional advisory councils. The proposed Amendment 11 clearly sets out the desire of the Committee to see the role of the regional advisory councils facilitated through indefinite funding. Whereas the Commission is willing to explore options for funding beyond the currently prescribed five-year period, a commitment cannot be made at this stage since this would not be in line with the current regulation that has established the regional advisory councils, but this request can be reconsidered in the first evaluation of the functioning of the regional advisory councils three years after their establishment.
On the cost of commissioning scientific advice, the Commission is already paying independent and credible bodies to deliver the scientific advice. RACs are welcome to highlight to the Commission any need for scientific advice. However, the Commission reserves its right to decide on the justification of such a request on a case-by-case basis and will lead the process of obtaining this advice."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Först av allt vill jag tacka ledamoten för hennes betänkande om förslaget till rådets förordning om gemenskapens finansieringsåtgärder för genomförande av den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken och havsrättsligt arbete. Den finansiering som föreslås i förordningen kommer att utgöra en väsentlig del i budgetpaketet för fisket för 2007–2013. Näst efter Europeiska fiskerifonden utgör förordningen den rättsliga grunden för de flesta andra utgifter för den fortsatta gemensamma fiskeripolitiken och kommer, enligt kommissionens ursprungliga förslag till budgetplan, att omfatta utgifter till ett värde av mer än 2,5 miljarder euro under sjuårsperioden 2007–2013.
Kommissionen håller i princip med om innehållet i ändringsförslag 12 men har svårt att godta formen. Det föreslagna ändringsförslaget kan få en begränsande effekt på det som är utformat som en bred och allmän punkt om målen för avtal om fiskepartnerskap. Att medlen utnyttjas effektivt är en av de principer som nämns i rådets slutsatser av den 19 juli 2004 om avtal om fiskepartnerskap, och det bör inte framhävas enskilt till förfång för andra principer och mål som fastställts i rådet.
Kommissionen har svårt att godta ändringsförslag 3. Flertalet av de aspekter som nämns i ändringsförslaget täcks antingen av rådets slutsatser om avtal om fiskepartnerskap eller av den budgetförordning som tillämpas i fråga om den allmänna budgeten för Europeiska gemenskaperna.
Kommissionen håller med om innehållet i ändringsförslag 4 men inte formen. Kommissionen går i princip med på att tillhandahålla sammanfattningar och sammanställningar av uppgifter på begäran eller för särskilda ändamål, men det är i det här läget inte förutsett att uppgifter med automatik ska ges ut i form av periodiska publikationer eller rapporter.
Ändringsförslag 15 kan inte godtas av kommissionen eftersom avtal om fiskepartnerskap i huvudsak grundas på affärsmässiga förhållanden. Tredjelandet är ansvarigt för och kan oinskränkt använda sina inkomster inom ramen för avtalet, helt eller delvis, för att stödja sin fiskeripolitik enligt de ändamål som man har kommit överens med gemenskapen om i en gemensam strategi. Parterna kommer att gemensamt utvärdera resultaten av politiken. Kommissionen kan emellertid inte i detta sammanhang föreskriva redovisningsrevisioner eller kontroller på plats i tredjeländer utan deras medgivande.
Av liknande skäl kan kommissionen inte godta ändringsförslag 16. Alla avtal om fiskepartnerskap innehåller bestämmelser om utbetalning av medel och användningen av den andel som ska användas till fiskeripolitiken i tredjelandet. Grundat på indikatorer och riktmärken kommer båda parter att gemensamt utvärdera resultatet av politiken och göra nödvändiga justeringar där så är lämpligt. Tredjelandet är dock suveränt i fråga om sin nationella budget och sin finansiella förvaltning.
Som jag tidigare sa kan kommissionen godta ändringsförslag 17.
När det gäller ändringsförslag 18 vill jag säga att kommissionen välkomnar parlamentets stöd för att förstärka budgeten för den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken under förhandlingarna om budgetplanen för perioden 2007–2013. Den förordning som föreslås kan per definition endast antas när en överenskommelse om budgetplanen, förhoppningsvis, har nåtts. Därför kommer det förmodligen inte att vara aktuellt att lägga till ett skäl, såsom föreslås i ändringsförslaget.
Kommissionen håller med om innehållet i ändringsförslag 19, men inte om formen. Det småskaliga fisket, som en del av fångstsektorn, är redan med i de regionala rådgivande nämnderna genom beslutet om nämnderna. Kommissionen stöder alltså redan nu deras deltagande i de regionala rådgivande nämnderna som ordinarie ledamöter.
Förslaget syftar till en mer öppen och förenklad ram för gemenskapens ekonomiska insatser. Inriktningen är att göra de ekonomiska insatserna mer effektiva på områdena kontroll och tillsyn, insamling av uppgifter, vetenskaplig rådgivning, en förstärkning av styrelseformerna för den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken samt internationella förbindelser och havsrättsfrågor.
Låt mig nu gå över till de ändringsförslag som framförs i det betänkande vi har framför oss. Kommissionen kan godta ändringsförslag 1 och kommer att fortsätta att göra vad som är möjligt, inom sin behörighet, för att arbeta för att garantera hållbara resurser i tredjeländer.
Kommissionen håller i princip med om innehållet i ändringsförslag 2, men har svårt att godta formen. Det föreslagna ändringsförslaget kan få en begränsande effekt på det som är utformat som en bred och allmän punkt om den mycket viktiga kontrollkapaciteten i tredjeländer. Dessutom har kommissionen planer på att fokusera på att utveckla gemensamma mål tillsammans med tredjeländer snarare än att föreskriva i detalj vilka medel som ska användas för att nå de målen, eftersom olika länder har olika behov.
Ändringsförslagen 3–8 bör ses tillsammans med ändringsförslag 17 eftersom man där åberopar mål som redan omfattas av rådets slutsatser av den 19 juli 2004 om avtal om fiskepartnerskap. Lagbestämmelserna i förordningen är emellertid inte rätt plats för politiska uttalanden. Kommissionen anser därför att en hänvisning till dessa slutsatser i skälen i den föreslagna förordningen, såsom föreslås i ändringsförslag 17, är det bästa sättet att inkludera dessa aspekter och kan därför godta ändringsförslag 17. I konsekvens med det menar vi att innehållet i ändringsförslagen 3–8 täcks in i detta skäl.
Eftersom Natura 2000-nätverket hör till gemenskapens miljöpolitik kan kommissionen inte godta ändringsförslag 9 i en förordning som uteslutande gäller den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken. Kommissionen kommer dock att se till att den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken överensstämmer med miljömålen.
Av liknande skäl kan kommissionen inte godta ändringsförslag 10. Inom ramen för avtal om fiskepartnerskap krävs, enligt rådets slutsatser som hänvisades till tidigare, överensstämmelse mellan målen för den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken och målen för annan gemenskapspolitik såsom miljömål.
Kommissionen uppskattar det stöd som fiskeriutskottet har visat och fortsätter att visa gentemot de regionala rådgivande nämnderna. I ändringsförslag 11 kommer utskottets önskan att förenkla för de regionala rådgivande nämnderna till tydligt uttryck genom att man föreslår finansiering på obestämd tid. Kommissionen är villig att undersöka alternativ för finansiering även efter den föreskrivna femårsperioden, men något åtagande kan inte göras i detta läge. Det skulle inte vara i linje med förordningen om inrättande av de regionala rådgivande nämnderna. Denna begäran kan dock övervägas på nytt vid den första utvärderingen av de regionala rådgivande nämnderna efter tre år.
När det gäller kostnaden för vetenskaplig rådgivning vill jag säga att kommissionen redan betalar oberoende och trovärdiga organ för vetenskaplig rådgivning. Regionala rådgivande nämnder är välkomna att lägga fram behov av vetenskaplig rådgivning för kommissionen. Kommissionen förbehåller sig dock rätten att besluta från fall till fall om det är motiverat och kommer att styra processen med att ta in dessa råd."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples