Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-325"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.22.3-325"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@cs1
"Hr. formand, hr. kommissær, De har allerede skitseret indholdet i partnerskabsaftalen og forklaret os, at det er en af de første - hvis ikke den første - der bliver forhandlet på plads af Kommissionen som en del af den nye filosofi, som Rådet vedtog i juli 2004. Jeg er sikker på, at general Morillon bliver glad, når jeg fortæller ham om Deres engagement i at forsøge at finde en løsning på tidsproblemet. Fiskeriudvalget vil gerne have, at De tænker Dem om igen vedrørende Deres accept af ændringsforslagene.
Vi fik det endelige forslag forelagt den 18. oktober i år, 14 dage efter at fristen for første udbetaling var passeret. Jeg forstår, at De allerede havde talt om det med embedsmænd fra Seychellerne, og at de var meget forstående, men det var igen ni måneder efter, at aftalen skulle være trådt i kraft. Vi forstår vanskelighederne ved at forhandle om en ny type aftale, men vi i Fiskeriudvalget føler, at vi gerne vil holdes bedre informeret om, hvad der foregår. Vi vil også gerne have nogle oplysninger om, hvad slags aftale man når frem til, derfor understregningen af, at det finansielle bidrag skal anvendes til udvikling for de kystbefolkninger, der lever af fiskeri.
Jeg vender tilbage til det, jeg sagde tidligere på aftenen om, at vi nu taler om fiskeripartnerskabsaftaler, hvor begge parter får rettigheder, men også påtager sig forpligtelser. Der er en følelse i Fiskeriudvalget af, at vi gerne vil vide, hvad der foregår. Vi ønsker, at Kommissionen skal forelægge en rapport for os og Rådet om gennemførelsen af aftalen og de betingelser, hvorunder den bliver gennemført, og at dette skal indeholde en cost-benefit-analyse. Hvis vi ikke får den slags oplysninger, når vi skal til at forny aftalen, hvordan kan vi så afgive en velovervejet udtalelse om værdien af den nye aftale?
Med hensyn til vores ændringsforslag ville jeg være Dem meget taknemmelig, hr. kommissær, hvis De kunne se, hvad Fiskeriudvalget forsøger at opnå i denne henseende: større involvering af Parlamentet, ikke et forsøg på at overtage Kommissionens forhandlingsmandat, men på at få virkelige informationer om, hvad der bliver afgjort. Det er de europæiske skatteyderes penge, det drejer sig om. Vi er sikre på, at Kommissionen gør sit allerbedste for at sikre, at de bliver godt anvendt, men vi er en del af budgetmyndigheden. Vi vil gerne have sikkerhed for, at vi kan få de observations- og kontrolmuligheder, som er en del af vores mandat.
Jeg vil bede Dem om at tænke Dem om endnu en gang angående disse ændringsforslag, hr. kommissær. Jeg er sikker på, at medlemmerne af Fiskeriudvalget og general Morillon i særdeleshed vil være Dem yderst taknemmelig."@da2
".
Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Sie haben den Inhalt des Partnerschaftsabkommens bereits erläutert und festgestellt, dass dies eines der ersten – wenn nicht sogar das erste – Abkommen ist, das von der Kommission im Rahmen der neuen, vom Rat im Juli 2004 verabschiedeten Strategie ausgehandelt wurde. Ich bin fest davon überzeugt, dass General Morillon erfreut sein wird, wenn ich ihm von Ihrer Zusage berichte, sich aktiv um eine Lösung des Problems des zu engen Zeitrahmens zu bemühen. Der Fischereiausschuss möchte Sie ersuchen, die Annahme der Änderungsanträge erneut zu überdenken.
Der abschließende Vorschlag wurde uns am 18. Oktober dieses Jahres vorgelegt, 14 Tage nach Ablauf der für die erste Zahlung vorgesehenen Frist. Ich nehme zur Kenntnis, dass Sie sich darüber bereits mit Beamten der Seychellen verständigt hatten und diese großes Verständnis zeigten, doch auch dies ereignete sich neun Monate nach dem geplanten Inkrafttreten des Abkommens. Wir sind uns der besonderen Anforderungen, die sich aus der Aushandelung eines neuartigen Abkommens ergeben, durchaus bewusst, doch möchten wir Mitglieder des Fischereiausschusses besser über das Geschehen informiert werden. Außerdem möchten wir zu diesem Abkommen ebenfalls etwas beitragen, daher dringen wir darauf, dass der Finanzbeitrag zur Förderung der von der Fischerei lebenden Küstenbevölkerung verwendet wird.
Ich möchte noch einmal auf meine vorhin gemachte Äußerung zurückkommen, wonach es jetzt um Fischerei-Partnerabkommen geht, bei denen beide Seiten Rechte erwerben, aber auch Verpflichtungen eingehen. Wir Mitglieder des Fischereiausschusses wollen über das Geschehen im Bilde sein, wir möchten, dass die Kommission uns und dem Rat über die Anwendung des Abkommens sowie über die Bedingungen, unter denen es umgesetzt wurde, berichtet und eine Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse beifügt. Wenn wir diese Informationen nicht erhalten, wie können wir dann bei der Verlängerung eine fundierte Stellungnahme zum Für und Wider des neuen Abkommens abgeben?
Mit Blick auf unsere Änderungsanträge wäre ich Ihnen, Herr Kommissar, äußerst dankbar, wenn Sie nachvollziehen könnten, was der Fischereiausschuss damit erreichen will: Es geht um eine umfassendere Beteiligung des Europäischen Parlaments, nicht um den Versuch, das Verhandlungsmandat der Kommission zu übernehmen, es geht um einen echten Anteil an der Entscheidungsfindung. Schließlich handelt es sich hier um die Steuergelder der europäischen Bürger. Wir sind überzeugt, dass die Kommission alles dafür tut, dass sie sinnvoll verwendet werden, doch wir sind Teil der Haushaltsbehörde. Wir möchten die Zusicherung, dass wir die uns gemäß unserem Mandat zustehende Beobachtung und Kontrolle ausüben können.
Herr Kommissar, denken Sie bitte noch einmal über diese Änderungsanträge nach. Ich bin mir sicher, dass die Mitglieder des Fischereiausschusses und insbesondere General Morillon Ihnen zutiefst dankbar sein werden."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, περιγράψατε ήδη το περιεχόμενο της συμφωνίας συνεργασίας και μας εξηγήσατε ότι πρόκειται για μια από τις πρώτες –αν όχι την πρώτη– συμφωνία που θα διαπραγματευτεί η Επιτροπή στο πλαίσιο της νέας φιλοσοφίας που συμφωνήθηκε από το Συμβούλιο τον Ιούλιο του 2004. Είμαι σίγουρη ότι ο στρατηγός Morillon θα χαρεί όταν του διαβιβάσω τη δέσμευσή σας να επιδιώξετε την εξεύρεση λύσης στο πρόβλημα των χρονικών ορίων. Η Επιτροπή Αλιείας σας καλεί να επανεξετάσετε το ενδεχόμενο να κάνετε δεκτές τις τροπολογίες.
Η τελική πρόταση μας υποβλήθηκε εφέτος στις 18 Οκτωβρίου, 14 ημέρες μετά την προθεσμία για την πρώτη πληρωμή. Δέχομαι ότι είχατε ήδη συζητήσει το θέμα με αξιωματούχους στις Σεϋχέλλες και έδειξαν μεγάλη κατανόηση, αλλά και αυτό συνέβη εννέα μήνες μετά την προγραμματισμένη ημερομηνία έναρξης ισχύος της συμφωνίας. Αντιλαμβανόμαστε την επιτακτική ανάγκη διαπραγμάτευσης ενός νέου τύπου συμφωνίας, αλλά, ως μέλη της Επιτροπής Αλιείας, θεωρούμε σκόπιμο να είμαστε καλύτερα ενημερωμένοι για τις εξελίξεις. Θέλουμε, επίσης, να έχουμε κάποια συμμετοχή στη μορφή της συμφωνίας που πρόκειται να συναφθεί και γι’ αυτόν τον λόγο δίνεται έμφαση στο γεγονός ότι η χρηματική συνεισφορά πρέπει να χρησιμοποιηθεί ως αναπτυξιακή βοήθεια προς τους πληθυσμούς παραθαλάσσιων κοινοτήτων ο βιοπορισμός των οποίων εξαρτάται από την αλιεία.
Επανέρχομαι στην επισήμανση που έκανα νωρίτερα σήμερα το απόγευμα, ότι δηλαδή συζητάμε για συμφωνίες συνεργασίας στον τομέα της αλιείας στις οποίες και τα δύο μέρη αποκτούν δικαιώματα, αλλά αναλαμβάνουν, επίσης, υποχρεώσεις. Ως μέλη της Επιτροπής Αλιείας, επιθυμούμε να γνωρίζουμε τι συμβαίνει, και γι’ αυτό ζητούμε από την Επιτροπή να παρουσιάσει στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο έκθεση σχετικά με την εφαρμογή της συμφωνίας και τις συνθήκες υπό τις οποίες υλοποιήθηκε, περιλαμβανομένης ανάλυσης της σχέσης κόστους/ωφέλειας. Αν δεν έχουμε αυτές τις πληροφορίες, όταν τίθεται το θέμα της ανανέωσης, πώς μπορούμε να γνωμοδοτήσουμε κατά τρόπο τεκμηριωμένο σχετικά με τα οφέλη της νέας συμφωνίας;
Σας παρακαλώ, κύριε Επίτροπε, αναφορικά με τις τροπολογίες μας, θα ήμουν ευγνώμων αν μπορούσατε να κατανοήσετε τους στόχους της προσπάθειας της Επιτροπής Αλιείας σε αυτό το θέμα: πληρέστερη ανάμιξη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, όχι προσπάθεια σφετερισμού της διαπραγματευτικής εντολής της Επιτροπής, αλλά πραγματική συμμετοχή στις αποφάσεις. Πρόκειται για χρήματα των ευρωπαίων φορολογουμένων. Είμαστε σίγουροι ότι η Επιτροπή κάνει ό,τι καλύτερο μπορεί για να διασφαλίσει την καλή χρήση τους, αλλά είμαστε μέλη της δημοσιονομικής αρχής. Θέλουμε διαβεβαιώσεις ότι θα μπορέσουμε να ασκήσουμε την παρακολούθηση και τον έλεγχο που προβλέπει η εντολή μας.
Σας παρακαλώ, κύριε Επίτροπε, να επανεξετάσετε τη στάση σας έναντι αυτών των τροπολογιών. Είμαι βέβαιη ότι τα μέλη της Επιτροπής Αλιείας, και ιδίως ο στρατηγός Morillon, θα σας είναι ιδιαίτερα ευγνώμονες."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, usted ya nos ha esbozado el contenido del acuerdo de asociación y nos ha explicado que es uno de los primeros, si no el primero, que la Comisión va a negociar al amparo de la nueva filosofía acordada por el Consejo en julio de 2004. Estoy seguro de que el general Morillon estará encantado cuando le transmita su firme voluntad de encontrar una solución al problema de los plazos. La Comisión de Pesca quisiera que usted reconsidere la aceptación de las enmiendas.
Nos transmitieron la propuesta final el 18 de octubre de este año, dos semanas después del fin del plazo límite para el primer pago. Acepto que usted ya había hablado sobre ello con los funcionarios de las Seychelles y que ellos han sido muy comprensivos, pero esto no cambia el hecho de que fue nueve meses después de que el acuerdo debía haber entrado en vigor. Nos damos cuenta de las exigencias que supone negociar un nuevo tipo de acuerdo, pero en la Comisión de Pesca queremos que nos mantengan mejor informados de lo que está pasando. También queremos recibir información sobre el tipo de acuerdo que se está alcanzando, de ahí la insistencia en que la económica deba usarse para el desarrollo de las poblaciones costeras que viven de la pesca.
Vuelvo al asunto a que me referí esta tarde. Estamos hablando ahora de acuerdos de asociación de pesca en los que ambas partes adquieren derechos pero también asumen obligaciones. Existe el sentimiento por parte de la Comisión de Pesca de que queremos conocer lo que está pasando, queremos que la Comisión nos envíe un informe a nosotros y al Consejo sobre la aplicación del acuerdo y sobre las condiciones en las cuales se ha aplicado e incluir un análisis de rentabilidad. Si no tenemos ese tipo de información, cuando se plantee su renovación, ¿cómo podremos dar una opinión razonada sobre los méritos del nuevo acuerdo?
Por favor, señor Comisario, con respecto a nuestras enmiendas estaría agradecida si pudiese ver usted lo que la Comisión de Pesca trata de lograr en este sentido: una mayor implicación del Parlamento Europeo, no un intento de asumir el mandato de negociación de la Comisión sino tener una influencia real en lo que se está decidiendo. Lo que está en juego es el dinero de los contribuyentes europeos. Estamos seguros de que la Comisión hace el mayor esfuerzo posible por asegurar que se le dé un buen uso, pero nosotros formamos parte de la autoridad presupuestaria. Quisiéramos asegurarnos de tener la observación y el control, que es parte de nuestro mandato.
Por favor, señor Comisario, reconsidere esas enmiendas. Estoy seguro de que los diputados de la Comisión de Pesca y el general Morillon en particular le estarán profundamente agradecidos."@es20
"Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa komission jäsen, olette jo esittänyt pääpiirteet kumppanuussopimuksen sisällöstä ja selittänyt meille, että sopimus on ensimmäisiä – ellei jopa aivan ensimmäinen – jonka komissio neuvottelee neuvostossa heinäkuussa 2004 sovitun uuden toimintatavan mukaisesti. Kenraali Morillon tulee varmaankin tyytyväiseksi kertoessani hänelle, että olette sitoutunut löytämään ratkaisun ajoitusongelmaan. Kalatalousvaliokunta haluaisi teidän harkitsevan uudelleen tarkistusten hyväksymistä.
Lopullinen ehdotus toimitettiin meille 18. lokakuuta, 14 päivää ensimmäisen maksun määräajan umpeutumisen jälkeen. Hyväksyn sen, että olitte jo keskustellut asiasta Seychellien virkamiesten kanssa ja että he olivat kovin ymmärtäväisiä, mutta tämäkin tapahtui yhdeksän kuukautta sen jälkeen, kun sopimuksen oli määrä tulla voimaan. Ymmärrämme kyllä, että uudentyyppisen sopimuksen neuvotteleminen on vaativaa, mutta kalatalousvaliokunta haluaa olla paremmin ajan tasalla siitä, mitä tapahtuu. Haluamme myös antaa oman panoksemme siihen, minkälainen sopimus saadaan aikaan, ja sen vuoksi painotammekin sitä, että taloudellinen korvaus on käytettävä kalataloudesta elantonsa saavien rannikkoyhteisöjen kehittämiseen.
Palaan jo aiemmin tänä iltana esittämääni huomioon siitä, että keskustelemme parhaillaan kalatalouden kumppanuussopimuksista, joissa molemmat osapuolet vaativat oikeuksia mutta ottavat myös velvollisuuksia. Me kalatalousvaliokunnassa haluamme nyt tietää, mitä tapahtuu, ja haluamme komission toimittavan meille ja neuvostolle kertomuksen sopimuksen soveltamisesta ja niistä edellytyksistä, joiden mukaisesti se on pantu täytäntöön. Haluamme myös, että kertomukseen sisältyy kustannushyötyanalyysi. Ilman tällaisia tietoja emme voi sopimuksen uusimisen yhteydessä antaa harkittua lausuntoa uuden sopimuksen hyvistä puolista.
Arvoisa komission jäsen, toivoisin, että käsittäisitte, mitä kalatalousvaliokunta yrittää saavuttaa tarkistuksillaan: haluamme Euroopan parlamentin suurempaa osallistumista, mutta emme yritä vallata komission neuvotteluvaltuuksia vaan antaa todellisen panoksemme päätöksenalaisiin asioihin. Kyse on eurooppalaisten veronmaksajien rahoista. Komissio tekee varmastikin parhaansa varmistaakseen, että ne käytetään hyviin tarkoituksiin, mutta me olemme toinen budjettivallan käyttäjistä. Haluaisimme vakuuttua siitä, että voimme harjoittaa seurantaa ja valvontaa, mikä on osa tehtäväämme.
Pyydän arvoisaa komission jäsentä miettimään uudelleen kyseisiä tarkistuksia. Olen varma, että kalatalousvaliokunnan jäsenet ja varsinkin kenraali Morillon olisivat siitä kiitollisia."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous avez déjà présenté le contenu de l’accord de partenariat en nous expliquant qu’il s’agissait là d’un des premiers - voire du premier - à être négocié par la Commission dans le cadre de la nouvelle approche adoptée par le Conseil en juillet 2004. Je suis sûre que le général Morillon sera ravi lorsque je lui ferai part de votre engagement à tenter de trouver une solution au problème de respect du calendrier. La commission de la pêche voudrait que vous reconsidériez votre position quant aux amendements.
La proposition finale nous a été présentée le 18 octobre dernier, soit 14 jours après le délai du premier paiement. Je conviens que vous ayez déjà abordé ce sujet avec les représentants des Seychelles et que ceux-ci se soient montrés très compréhensifs, mais, je le répète, neuf mois s’étaient déjà écoulés depuis la date prévue d’entrée en vigueur de l’accord. Nous sommes conscients des exigences qu’implique la négociation d’un nouveau type d’accord, mais les membres de la commission de la pêche souhaitent être tenus mieux informés de l’évolution de la situation. Nous voulons également avoir un certain rôle à jouer dans le type d’accord qui est sur le point d’être trouvé, d’où l’insistance pour que la contribution financière soit utilisée pour le développement des populations côtières qui vivent de la pêche.
J’en reviens au point que je développais en début de soirée, à savoir que nous parlons à présent d’accords de partenariat en matière de pêche par lesquels les deux parties obtiennent des droits, mais aussi des obligations. La commission de la pêche souhaite savoir de quoi il retourne. Elle voudrait que la Commission lui présente un rapport à elle ainsi qu’au Conseil concernant l’application de l’accord et les conditions de sa mise en œuvre et qu’elle y intègre une analyse coût-avantage. En l’absence de telles informations, comment pourrons-nous rendre un avis motivé quant aux mérites du nouvel accord lorsque viendra l’heure du renouvellement?
Monsieur le Commissaire, concernant nos amendements, je vous serais reconnaissante si vous pouviez comprendre les objectifs visés par la commission de la pêche: une implication plus large du Parlement européen - une tentative non pas d’endosser le mandat de négociation de la Commission, mais bien d’avoir un véritable rôle à jouer dans la prise de décisions. C’est de l’argent des contribuables européens qu’il s’agit. Nous sommes persuadés que la Commission fait tout ce qui est en son pouvoir pour garantir que celui-ci est utilisé à bon escient, mais nous sommes partie intégrante de l’autorité budgétaire. Nous voulons avoir l’assurance de pouvoir observer et exercer un certain contrôle, comme le prévoit notre mandat.
Je vous en prie, Monsieur le Commissaire, reconsidérez ces amendements. Je suis persuadée que les membres de la commission de la pêche, et le général Morillon en particulier, vous en seraient extrêmement reconnaissants."@fr8
"Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@hu11
"Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@lt14
"Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@lv13
"Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, commissaris, u hebt de inhoud van de partnerschapsovereenkomst reeds toegelicht en daarbij tevens verklaard dat dit protocol zo niet de eerste dan toch een van de eerste visserijovereenkomsten is waarover de Commissie heeft onderhandeld in het licht van de nieuwe filosofie achter de partnerschapsovereenkomsten, waarover de Raad in juli 2004 overeenstemming heeft bereikt. Ik ben er zeker van dat generaal Morillon met voldoening zal kennis nemen van uw voornemen een oplossing te vinden voor het tijdsprobleem. Voorts verzoekt de Commissie visserij u te overwegen onze amendementen alsnog te aanvaarden.
Het definitieve voorstel werd bij ons ingediend op 18 oktober van dit jaar, veertien dagen na de deadline voor de eerste betaling. Het is goed dat u contact hebt opgenomen met functionarissen van de Seychellen en dat zij veel begrip hebben getoond, maar ook hier weer geschiedde een en ander pas negen maanden nadat de overeenkomst in werking moest treden. Wij erkennen de problematiek van de onderhandelingen over een nieuwe type overeenkomst; niettegenstaande vinden wij van de Commissie visserij dat we beter op de hoogte moeten worden gehouden van de ontwikkelingen. Ook willen we een zekere inbreng hebben in het soort overeenkomst dat wordt gesloten - vandaar de nadruk op de aanwending van de financiële tegenprestatie voor de ontwikkeling van de bevolking van kuststreken die van de visserij leeft.
Ik kom nog even terug op het punt dat ik eerder deze avond aansneed, namelijk dat de beide partijen van partnerschapsovereenkomsten op visserijgebied behalve rechten ook plichten hebben. De Commissie visserij vindt dat zij moet weten wat er gaande is en daarom willen wij dat de Commissie bij het Europees Parlement en de Raad een verslag indient over de toepassing van de overeenkomst en de omstandigheden waarin deze ten uitvoer werd gelegd en waarin eveneens een kosten-batenanalyse is gemaakt. Hoe kunnen wij zonder deze informatie een weloverwogen standpunt indienen over de verdiensten van de nieuwe overeenkomst?
Commissaris, ik zou het bijzonder op prijs stellen als u zou inzien wat de Commissie visserij met haar amendementen beoogt. Het Parlement wil meer betrokkenheid. Wij tornen niet aan het onderhandelingsmandaat van de Commissie maar willen enkel een reële bijdrage leveren aan de besluitvorming. Het geld van de Europese belastingbetalers staat op het spel. We zijn er weliswaar van overtuigd dat de Commissie haar uiterste best doet om ervoor te zorgen dat het geld goed wordt besteed, maar wij zijn wel een tak van de begrotingsautoriteit. We willen er zeker van zijn dat we toezicht en controle kunnen uitoefenen, die deel uitmaken van ons mandaat.
Ik ben er zeker van dat de leden van de Commissie visserij, en generaal Morillon in het bijzonder, u uiterst dankbaar zouden zijn als u, commissaris, onze amendementen opnieuw in overweging zou nemen."@nl3
"Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, V. Exa. já nos traçou o teor do acordo de parceria e explicou-nos que é um dos primeiros – se não mesmo o primeiro – acordo a ser negociado pela Comissão no âmbito da nova filosofia aprovada pelo Conselho em Julho de 2004. Tenho a certeza que o Deputado Morillon ficará satisfeito quando lhe transmitir o vosso empenho em encontrar uma solução para o problema do calendário. A Comissão das Pescas gostaria que o Senhor Comissário reflectisse de novo sobre a sua aceitação das alterações.
A proposta final foi-nos apresentada em 18 de Outubro do corrente ano, catorze dias após o final do prazo para o primeiro pagamento. Aceito que o Senhor Comissário já tivesse falado sobre o assunto com funcionários nas Seychelles, e que eles tenham sido muito compreensivos, mas uma vez mais isto aconteceu nove meses depois da data prevista para a entrada em vigor do acordo. Temos noção das exigências da negociação de um novo tipo de acordo mas sentimos, na Comissão das Pescas, vontade de estarmos mais bem informados sobre o que se está a passar. Também pretendemos dar algum contributo para o tipo de acordo que está a ser alcançado, e isso justifica a ênfase de que a contribuição financeira deva ser usada para o desenvolvimento das populações costeiras que vivem da pesca.
Queria agora voltar à questão que referi no início desta noite e que estamos agora a discutir, ou seja, os acordos de parceria em matéria de pescas em que as duas partes adquirem direitos mas também assumem obrigações. Na Comissão das Pescas existe o desejo de sabermos o que se está a passar, de querermos que a Comissão nos apresente um relatório a nós e ao Conselho sobre a aplicação do acordo e as respectivas condições em que foi implementado, que deverá incluir uma análise da relação custo/benefício. Se não dispusermos desse tipo de informação, quando é chegado o momento da renovação, como é que podemos emitir um parecer ponderado sobre os méritos do novo acordo?
Senhor Comissário, no que respeita às nossas alterações ficar-lhe-ia muito grato se conseguisse perceber o que a Comissão das Pescas está a tentar conseguir nesta matéria: um envolvimento mais pleno do Parlamento Europeu, e não uma tentativa de assumir o mandato negocial conferido à Comissão, para poder contribuir realmente para o que está a ser decidido. São os impostos pagos pelos contribuintes europeus que estão em jogo. Temos a certeza de que a Comissão está a fazer o seu melhor para garantir que será bem aplicado, mas nós fazemos parte da autoridade orçamental. Gostaríamos que nos garantissem que poderemos fazer a observação e a supervisão, que fazem parte do nosso mandato.
Senhor Comissário, por favor reflicta novamente sobre essas alterações. Tenho a certeza de que os membros da Comissão das Pescas, e especialmente o Deputado Morillon, lhe ficarão muito gratos."@pt17
"Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@sk18
"Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@sl19
".
Herr talman, herr kommissionsledamot! Ni har redan beskrivit innehållet i partnerskapsavtalet och förklarat för oss att det är ett av de första – kanske det allra första – som ska förhandlas av kommissionen som en del av den nya filosofi som rådet enades om i juli 2004. Jag är säker på att general Morillon kommer att bli glad när jag berättar för honom om ert engagemang för att hitta en lösning på problemet med tidsaspekten. Fiskeriutskottet vill att ni än en gång tänker över ert godtagande av ändringsförslagen.
Det slutgiltiga förslaget lämnades till oss den 18 oktober i år, 14 dagar efter det att tidsfristen gick ut för den första betalningen. Jag förstår att ni redan hade talat om det med tjänstemän i Seychellerna och att de var mycket förstående, men detta var nio månader efter det att avtalet skulle träda i kraft. Vi uppskattar behovet av att förhandla fram en ny typ av avtal, men vi i fiskeriutskottet känner att vi vill hålla oss mer informerade om vad som pågår. Vi vill också ha någon form av information om den typ av avtal som nås, och därmed tonvikten vid att det ekonomiska bidraget måste användas för utvecklingen av kustbefolkning som lever av fiske.
Jag återgår till den poäng som jag gjorde tidigare i kväll om att vi nu talar om avtal om fiskepartnerskap där båda sidorna förvärvar rättigheter men även tar på sig skyldigheter. Det finns en känsla i fiskeriutskottet av att vi vill veta vad som pågår; vi vill att kommissionen ska överlämna en rapport till oss och till rådet om tillämpningen av avtalet och om de villkor på vilka det genomfördes, samt inkludera en lönsamhetsanalys. Om vi inte har denna typ av information när det gäller förnyelsen, hur ska vi då kunna lämna ett motiverat yttrande till fördelarna med det nya avtalet?
Herr kommissionsledamot! När det gäller våra ändringsförslag skulle jag vara mycket tacksam om ni kunde se vad det är som fiskeriutskottet försöker uppnå i detta avseende – ett större engagemang från Europaparlamentet, inte ett försök att ta över kommissionens förhandlingsfullmakt, utan att få verklig information om vad som beslutas. Det är de europeiska skattebetalarnas pengar som står på spel. Vi är säkra på att kommissionen gör sitt allra bästa för att se till att de används på ett bra sätt, men vi är en del av budgetmyndigheten. Vi vill få försäkringar om att vi har rätt till insyn och kontroll, vilket ingår i vårt uppdrag.
Herr kommissionsledamot! Fundera en gång till över våra ändringsförslag. Jag är säker på att ledamöterna i fiskeriutskottet och särskilt general Morillon skulle vara mycket tacksamma om ni gjorde det."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Elspeth Attwooll (ALDE ),"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"deputising for the rapporteur"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples