Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-330"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-12-14"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EÜ ja Seišellide vahelise kalastamise kokkuleppe protokoll⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051214.22.3-330"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-12-14-Speech-3-331⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Joe Borg⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, først og fremmest gentager jeg med hensyn til de fire ændringsforslag, der er blevet stillet, at med hensyn til accept eller forkastelse af ændringsforslag 1, som går på en betragtning, så ville det ikke tilføje noget positivt. Jeg påtager mig at drøfte dette med formanden for Fiskeriudvalget, og med udvalget selv, for at finde en mere permanent løsning, så situationen forhåbentlig kan afhjælpes en gang for alle, og Fiskeriudvalget får tilstrækkelig tid til at foretage den nødvendige evaluering og afgive sin udtalelse om de foreslåede aftaler i overensstemmelse hermed. Med hensyn til ændringsforslag 2 er det, som det fremgår af artikel 7 i protokollen, op til kyststaten, efter aftale med Fællesskabet, at beslutte, hvordan det finansielle bidrag skal anvendes til støtte for dens fiskeripolitik. Det er derfor Seychellernes myndigheder, der har ansvaret for at udpege det, de prioriterer højest i deres fiskeripolitik, og som skal gennemføres med bistand fra fiskeriaftalen. Derfor ville indholdet af ændringsforslag 2 gå imod en sådan rettighed, der tilhører et tredjeland, som vi forhandler en sådan aftale med, selv om vi prøver at påvirke det og har indflydelse på anvendelsen af disse midler inden for den indgåede aftales parametre. Det er sikkert, at udviklingsmulighederne for fiskeriafhængige kystbefolkninger er et område, som vi prøver at understrege over for de pågældende stater, og som bør have højeste prioritet. Med hensyn til ændringsforslag 3 er vi helt enige i Parlamentets interesse i at blive holdt underrettet om de forskellige aspekter af gennemførelsen af protokollen. Kommissionen sørger allerede for videregivelse af sådanne oplysninger i overensstemmelse med de nuværende interinstitutionelle ordninger. Men jeg vil se på måder, hvorpå vi kan forbedre denne kommunikations- og drøftelsesproces med Parlamentet. Jeg kan dog ikke her og nu love at acceptere ændringsforslaget, før jeg har vurderet de fulde implikationer for de ressourcer, der er til rådighed for mit generaldirektorat, med det forøgede ansvar, vi har, uden nogen forøgelse af staben. Denne opgave har været et problem - vi taler om ca. 30 aftaler - og jeg må have foretaget en vurdering af, hvad det vil indebære, før jeg kan afgive et positivt løfte. Jeg vil bestemt forsøge at finde måder, hvorpå vi kan forbedre denne proces, og forhåbentlig få den medtaget i fremtidige aftaler. Når vi har fået medtaget den i en aftale, vil den blive standardelement i dem alle. Jeg må understrege, at jeg må være sikker på, at hvis vi påtager os forpligtelser, så vil vi også fysisk være i stand til at opfylde dem. Det problem, vi har stået over for indtil nu, ligger i varigheden af de interne procedurer, høringerne på et tidligt tidspunkt af medlemsstaterne og kravene til oversættelse, der er vokset betydeligt - det nævnte hr. Stevenson. Vi håber at finde en løsning på kort sigt, og jeg vil drøfte det med general Morillon i januar, så jeg håber, vi kan finde frem til en løsning, der er acceptabel for Fiskeriudvalget, så vi ikke igen kommer i denne situation, som Kommissionen er flov over, og som ikke giver Parlamentet ordentlig tid til at udøve de funktioner, det har."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Zunächst möchte ich mit Blick auf die vier vorgelegten Änderungsanträge wiederholen, dass Änderungsantrag 1, der eine Erwägung betrifft, keinerlei Verbesserungen bringen würde. Ich verpflichte mich, dies mit dem Vorsitzenden des Fischereiausschusses sowie mit dem Ausschuss selbst zu besprechen, um eine langfristige Lösung zu finden, damit die Situation hoffentlich ein für allemal geklärt werden kann. Der Fischereiausschuss wird ausreichend Zeit für seine notwendige Bewertung und seine entsprechenden Ratschläge zu den vorliegenden Übereinkommen erhalten. Was nun Änderungsantrag 2 gemäß Artikel 7 des Protokolls anbelangt, so kann der Küstenstaat gemeinsam mit der Gemeinschaft darüber entscheiden, in welcher Weise der Finanzbeitrag zur Unterstützung seiner Fischereipolitik verwendet wird. Demzufolge ist es Sache der Behörden auf den Seychellen, die wichtigsten Schwerpunkte ihrer Fischereipolitik zu benennen, die mithilfe des Fischereiabkommens realisiert werden sollen. Änderungsantrag 2 würde daher dem Recht des Drittlandes zuwiderlaufen, mit dem diese Abkommen ausgehandelt werden, auch wenn wir im Rahmen der Vertragsbestimmungen zur Verwendung dieser Mittel versuchen, Einfluss zu nehmen oder Hinweise zu geben. Gewiss ist die Förderung der vom Fischfang lebenden Küstenbevölkerung ein Thema, das wir den betroffenen Staaten besonders ans Herz legen wollen und dem höchste Priorität beigemessen werden sollte. Bei Änderungsantrag 3 teilen wir das Anliegen des Europäischen Parlaments, es über die einzelnen Aspekte der Umsetzung des Protokolls auf dem Laufenden zu halten. Die Kommission übermittelt solche Informationen bereits jetzt in Übereinstimmung mit den aktuellen interinstitutionellen Vereinbarungen. Ich werde jedoch nach Mitteln und Wegen suchen, um diese Kommunikation und den Prozess der Erörterung mit dem Europäischen Parlament zu verbessern. Allerdings kann ich mich angesichts der vermehrten Aufgaben, die bei einer gleichbleibenden Anzahl von Mitarbeitern zu bewältigen sind, hier und jetzt nicht verbindlich zur Annahme des Änderungsantrags äußern, bevor ich alle Auswirkungen auf die vorhandenen Ressourcen in meiner GD geprüft habe. Diese Aufgabe stellte ein Problem dar – es geht hier um etwa 30 Abkommen –, und ich muss zunächst eine Bewertung seiner Auswirkungen vornehmen, bevor ich konkrete Zusagen machen kann. Ich werde ganz sicher nach Möglichkeiten zur Verbesserung des Prozesses suchen, die dann hoffentlich in künftigen Abkommen berücksichtigt werden. Sobald wir eine Verbesserung aufgenommen haben, wird sie integraler Bestandteil aller weiteren Abkommen sein. Ich muss darauf verweisen, dass wir bei der Übernahme von Verpflichtungen auch über die notwendigen materiellen Voraussetzungen verfügen müssen. Das Problem, mit dem wir bisher konfrontiert waren, besteht in der Dauer der internen Abläufe, den Beratungen in der Frühphase mit den Mitgliedstaaten sowie den Übersetzungsanforderungen, die beträchtlich angewachsen sind – Herr Stevenson hat darauf verwiesen. Wir hoffen, kurzfristig eine Lösung zu finden, und ich werde im Januar darüber mit General Morillon sprechen, damit wir eine den Fischereiausschuss zufrieden stellende Lösung erarbeiten können und damit sich solche Vorfälle nicht mehr wiederholen, die für die Kommission unerfreulich sind und dem Europäischen Parlament keine Zeit lassen, den ihm übertragenen Aufgaben nachzukommen."@de⁹ ". Κύριε Πρόεδρε, καταρχάς, σχετικά με τις τέσσερις τροπολογίες που έχουν κατατεθεί, επαναλαμβάνω ότι, όσον αφορά την αποδοχή ή όχι της τροπολογίας 1, η οποία αφορά μια αιτιολογική σκέψη, δεν θα προσδώσει προστιθέμενη αξία. Αναλαμβάνω να συζητήσω το θέμα με τον πρόεδρο της Επιτροπής Αλιείας και την ίδια την επιτροπή, προκειμένου να βρεθεί κάποια λύση σε μόνιμη βάση, ώστε να επιλυθεί η κατάσταση, ελπίζω, μία για πάντα, οπότε η Επιτροπή Αλιείας θα έχει αρκετό χρόνο για να προβαίνει στις αναγκαίες αξιολογήσεις και να γνωμοδοτεί για τις προτεινόμενες συμφωνίες. Σχετικά με την τροπολογία 2, όπως προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 7 του Πρωτοκόλλου, εναπόκειται στο παραθαλάσσιο κράτος, με τη σύμφωνη γνώμη της Κοινότητας, να αποφασίζει σχετικά με τον τρόπο χρησιμοποίησης της χρηματικής συνεισφοράς για τη στήριξη της αλιευτικής του πολιτικής. Είναι, ως εκ τούτου, ευθύνη των αρχών των Σεϋχελλών να εντοπίσουν τις βασικές προτεραιότητες της αλιευτικής τους πολιτικής τις οποίες θα εφαρμόσουν με τη βοήθεια της Αλιευτικής Συμφωνίας. Συνεπώς, το πεδίο εφαρμογής της τροπολογίας 2 θα ερχόταν σε σύγκρουση με την άσκηση αυτού του δικαιώματος από την τρίτη χώρα με την οποία συνάπτονται κατόπιν διαπραγματεύσεων παρόμοιες συμφωνίες, παρότι προσπαθούμε να ασκούμε επιρροή και να μας δίνονται σχετικές ενδείξεις εντός των παραμέτρων της συμφωνίας σχετικά με τη χρήση των κεφαλαίων. Βεβαίως, η ανάπτυξη των πληθυσμών των παραθαλάσσιων κοινοτήτων ο βιοπορισμός των οποίων εξαρτάται από την αλιεία είναι ένας τομέας για τον οποίο προσπαθούμε να ευαισθητοποιήσουμε τα ενδιαφερόμενα κράτη και στον οποίο πρέπει να δοθεί προτεραιότητα. Όσον αφορά την τροπολογία 3, συμμεριζόμαστε πλήρως την επιθυμία να τηρείται ενήμερο το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο για τις διαφορετικές πτυχές της υλοποίησης του Πρωτοκόλλου. Η Επιτροπή συμμορφώνεται ήδη με την υποχρέωση διαβίβασης τέτοιων πληροφοριών σύμφωνα με τις ισχύουσες διοργανικές συμφωνίες. Ωστόσο, θα εξετάσω τρόπους και μεθόδους βελτίωσης αυτής της διαδικασίας επικοινωνίας και διαβουλεύσεων με το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Δεν μπορώ, ωστόσο, να δεσμευτώ εδώ και τώρα ότι θα δεχτώ την τροπολογία πριν αξιολογήσω τον συνολικό αντίκτυπο στους πόρους που έχει στη διάθεσή της η αρμόδια Γενική Διεύθυνση της Επιτροπής, καθώς, ενώ έχουμε αυξημένες ευθύνες, δεν έχει υπάρξει καμία αύξηση στον αριθμό του προσωπικού. Αυτό το έργο ήταν προβληματικό –μιλάμε για 30 περίπου συμφωνίες– και χρειάζεται να προβώ σε σχετική αξιολόγηση πριν αναλάβω θετικές δεσμεύσεις. Θα προσπαθήσω, βεβαίως, να βρω τρόπους και μέσα με τα οποία ίσως μπορέσουμε να βελτιώσουμε την εν λόγω διαδικασία και τα οποία ευελπιστώ να συμπεριληφθούν σε μελλοντικές συμφωνίες. Εφόσον συμπεριληφθούν σε μια τέτοια συμφωνία, θα αποτελέσουν αναπόσπαστο στοιχείο όλων των συμφωνιών. Οφείλω να υπογραμμίσω ότι πρέπει να είμαι σίγουρος ότι, αν αναλάβουμε δεσμεύσεις, θα είμαστε σε θέση να τις τηρήσουμε στην πράξη. Το πρόβλημα που έχουμε αντιμετωπίσει έως τώρα έγκειται στη διάρκεια των εσωτερικών διαδικασιών, στις διαβουλεύσεις σε πρώιμο στάδιο με τα κράτη μέλη και στις μεταφραστικές απαιτήσεις που έχουν αυξηθεί σημαντικά – ο κ. Stevenson έθιξε αυτή την πτυχή. Ελπίζουμε ότι θα βρούμε λύση στο εγγύς μέλλον και θα συζητήσω το θέμα με τον στρατηγό Morillon τον Ιανουάριο, προκειμένου να καταλήξουμε σε μια λύση η οποία ευελπιστώ ότι θα γίνει δεκτή από την Επιτροπή Αλιείας και δεν θα επαναληφθούν παρόμοιες καταστάσεις, οι οποίες φέρνουν σε δύσκολη θέση την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και στερούν από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο τον αναγκαίο χρόνο για την άσκηση των καθηκόντων του."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, en primer lugar, con respecto a las cuatro enmiendas que se han presentado, repito que, con respecto a la aceptación o no de la enmienda 1, que se refiere a un considerando, no supondría ningún valor añadido. Pretendo discutir este asunto con el presidente de la Comisión de Pesca y con la comisión misma para encontrar una solución permanente, de modo que la situación pueda resolverse, esperemos, de una vez por todas y que la Comisión de Pesca tenga tiempo suficiente para hacer la evaluación necesaria y emitir su opinión sobre los acuerdos propuestos como corresponde. En cuanto a la enmienda 2, tal como se afirma en el artículo 7 del Protocolo, corresponde al Estado costero decidir, de conformidad con la Comunidad, para decidir la forma de utilizar la contribución financiera para apoyar su política pesquera. Por ello, es responsabilidad de las autoridades de las Seychelles definir las principales prioridades de su política pesquera que deben aplicarse con la ayuda del acuerdo de pesca. Por tanto, el ámbito de la enmienda 2 iría en contra de este derecho ejercido por el país tercero con el que se negocian dichos acuerdos, si bien es cierto que intentamos influir y dar indicaciones en el marco de los parámetros del acuerdo alcanzado sobre el uso de los fondos. Sin duda, el desarrollo de las poblaciones costeras que viven de la pesca es un ámbito que intentamos recalcar a los Estados en cuestión y al que debe darse la máxima prioridad. Con respecto a la enmienda 3, compartimos plenamente la preocupación de mantener informado al Parlamento Europeo sobre los diversos aspectos de la aplicación del Protocolo. La Comisión ya respeta su obligación de transmitir dicha información de conformidad con los actuales acuerdos interinstitucionales. Sin embargo, examinaré maneras y medios para mejorar este proceso de comunicación y debate con el Parlamento Europeo. Sin embargo, no puedo comprometerme aquí y ahora a aceptar la enmienda antes de evaluar todas las implicaciones en cuanto a recursos disponibles en mi DG, con las mayores responsabilidades que tenemos, sin un aumento del número de efectivos. Esta tarea era un problema, pues estamos hablando de unos 30 acuerdos, y debo realizar una evaluación de lo que esto implicaría antes de comprometerme positivamente. Sin duda intentaré encontrar formas y medios para mejorar este proceso y espero que podamos incluirlo en acuerdos futuros; una vez que lo incluyamos en uno se convertirá en un elemento estándar para todos los acuerdos. Debo subrayar que tengo que estar seguro, para asumir compromisos, de que somos capaces físicamente de cumplirlos. El problema al que nos hemos enfrentado hasta ahora residía en la duración de los procedimientos internos, las consultas desde una fase temprana con los Estados miembros y las necesidades de traducción que han aumentado considerablemente. El señor Stevenson ha hecho referencia a ello. Esperemos encontrar una solución a corto plazo. Discutiremos todo esto con el General Morillon en enero, de modo que elaboremos una solución que espero sea aceptable para la Comisión de Pesca para que se repitan estas incidencias, que son embarazosas para la Comisión y dejan al Parlamento Europeo sin tiempo efectivo para llevar a cabo sus funciones legales."@es²⁰ "Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, haluan toistaa käsiteltäväksi jätettyjen neljän tarkistuksen osalta ensinnäkin sen, että johdanto-osan kappaletta koskevan tarkistuksen 1 hyväksyminen ei olisi tuonut mitään lisäarvoa tekstiin. Lupaan keskustella tästä kalatalousvaliokunnan puheenjohtajan ja itse valiokunnan kanssa, jotta löytäisimme asiaan pysyvän ja toivottavasti lopullisen ratkaisun, jonka jälkeen kalatalousvaliokunnalle jää riittävästi aikaa tehdä asian edellyttämä arviointinsa ja antaa neuvoja sopimusehdotuksista sen mukaisesti. Pöytäkirjan 7 artiklaa koskevan tarkistuksen 2 osalta olen sitä mieltä, että päätös siitä, miten rahoituskorvaus käytetään kalatalouspolitiikan hyväksi, on todellakin rannikkovaltion vastuulla, ja se tekee päätöksensä yhdessä EY:n kanssa. Kalataloussopimuksen avulla toteutettavan kalatalouspolitiikan tärkeimpien tavoitteiden määrittely on näin ollen ainoastaan Seychellien viranomaisten vastuulla. Tarkistuksen 2 soveltamisala sotii näin ollen sen EU:n ulkopuolisten maan oikeutta vastaan, jonka kanssa sopimuksia neuvotellaan. Yritämme tietenkin vaikuttaa siihen ja saada osviittaa siitä, miten sopimukseen sisältyvää rahoitusta oikein käytetään. Yritämme tietenkin myös vaikuttaa kalastuselinkeinoa harjoittavan rannikkoväestön kehitykseen asianomaisissa valtioissa, minkä pitäisikin olla keskeinen tavoite. Tarkistuksen 3 osalta olemme aivan samaa mieltä siitä, että Euroopan parlamentin on saatava tietoa pöytäkirjan täytäntöönpanon eri näkökohdista. Komissio toimittaa jo näitä tietoja nykyisten toimielintenvälisten järjestelyjen mukaisesti. Etsin tapoja ja keinoja parantaa tätä tiedonvälitystä ja keskusteluprosessia Euroopan parlamentin kanssa. En kuitenkaan voi sitoutua tänään hyväksymään tarkistusta ennen kuin teen arvion siitä, mitä vaikutuksia siitä on pääosastoni käytettävissä olevaan henkilöstöön. Meillä on paljon uusia tehtäviä, mutta emme ole saaneet lisää henkilöstöä. Tehtävä on ollut ongelmallinen – kyse on kuitenkin noin 30:stä sopimuksesta – joten voin laatia arvioni ainoastaan sen jälkeen, kun tiedän, mitä resursseja siihen edellytetään. Yritän tietenkin löytää keinoja ja parantaa prosessia, ja toivottavasti tulokset voidaan liittää uusiin sopimuksiin: sen jälkeen kun se on yhdessä sopimuksessa, se voidaan ottaa osaksi kaikkia sopimuksia. Haluan korostaa haluavani varmuuden siitä, että jos teemme sitoumuksia, meidän on myös kyettävä täyttämään ne konkreettisesti. Tähän mennessä käsittelemämme kysymys on jäänyt pitkällisten sisäisten menettelyjen, jäsenvaltioiden aiempien kuulemisten ja suunnattomasti kasvaneiden käännöstarpeiden jalkoihin. Jäsen Stevenson mainitsikin siitä. Toivomme asiaan pikaista ratkaisua, ja keskustelen siitä kenraali Morillonin kanssa tammikuussa päästäksemme kalatalousvaliokuntaa tyydyttävään ratkaisuun. Toivomme voivamme poistaa tämänkaltaiset tilanteet, jotka nolostuttavat komission eivätkä jätä Euroopan parlamentille tarpeeksi aikaa toteuttaa sen oikeutettuja tehtäviä."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, premièrement, pour les quatre amendements qui ont été déposés, je répète que, concernant l’éventuelle acceptation de l’amendement 1, qui porte sur un considérant, celle-ci n’apporterait aucune valeur ajoutée. Je compte en débattre avec le président de la commission de la pêche et avec la commission parlementaire elle-même, afin de trouver une solution permanente qui permettra, je l’espère, de résoudre la situation une bonne fois pour toutes et d’offrir à la commission de la pêche suffisamment de temps pour mener sa nécessaire évaluation et rendre son avis en conséquence sur les accords proposés. Concernant l’amendement 2, comme indiqué à l’article 7 du protocole, il revient à l’État côtier, en accord avec la Communauté, de décider de la manière dont sera utilisée la contribution financière visant à soutenir sa politique de la pêche. Il revient donc aux autorités seychelloises d’identifier les principales priorités de leur politique de la pêche à mettre en œuvre avec l’aide de l’accord de pêche. La portée de l’amendement 2 s’opposerait donc à l’exercice d’un tel droit par le pays tiers avec lequel sont négociés de tels accords, bien que nous essayions d’exercer une certaine influence et de disposer d’indications quant aux dispositions de l’accord obtenu en matière d’utilisation des fonds. Le développement des populations côtières vivant de la pêche est clairement une question que nous tentons d’imposer aux pays concernés et qui devrait figurer en tête de liste des priorités. Concernant l’amendement 3, nous partageons pleinement la préoccupation visant à tenir le Parlement informé des divers aspects de l’application du protocole. La Commission transmet déjà de telles informations, conformément aux accords interinstitutionnels existants. Cela étant, je chercherai des solutions d’amélioration de ce processus de communication et de discussion avec le Parlement européen. Je ne peux cependant m’engager ici et maintenant à accepter cet amendement avant d’avoir évalué, auprès de ma direction générale, toutes ses implications sur les ressources disponibles, avec les responsabilités accrues dont nous disposons sans obtenir pour autant d’augmentation du personnel. Cette tâche représentait un problème - nous parlons de quelque 30 accords -, et je dois entreprendre l’évaluation de ses implications avant de pouvoir contracter des engagements positifs. Je m’efforcerai naturellement de chercher des moyens d’améliorer ce processus et, je l’espère, d’intégrer ces améliorations dans les accords futurs. Après avoir été intégrées dans un accord, celles-ci deviendront une norme standard pour tous les accords à venir. Je me dois de souligner que nous devons nous assurer, avant de contracter des engagements, que nous pourront concrètement les respecter. Les problèmes auxquels nous nous sommes heurtés jusqu’ici résident dans la longueur des procédures internes, dans les consultations précoces avec les États membres et dans les exigences de traduction que nous avons considérablement renforcées - M. Stevenson y a fait référence. Nous espérons pouvoir trouver une solution à court terme. J’en discuterai en janvier avec le général Morillon, de sorte que nous puissions aboutir à une solution qui soit, je l’espère, acceptable pour la commission de la pêche et qui évitera toute répétition d’un tel scénario, qui embarrasse la Commission et ne laisse pas le temps au Parlement d’exercer ses fonctions légitimes."@fr⁸ "Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, innanzi tutto riguardo ai quattro emendamenti presentati ribadisco che l’approvazione o meno dell’emendamento n. 1, che rappresenta un considerando, non darebbe alcun valore aggiunto. Mi impegno a discutere il problema con il presidente della commissione per la pesca e la stessa commissione per trovare una soluzione definitiva, in maniera tale da risolvere la situazione, com’è auspicabile, una volta per tutte, cosicché la commissione per la pesca abbia abbastanza tempo per effettuare le valutazioni necessarie ed esprimere di conseguenza il proprio parere sugli accordi proposti. Per quanto concerne l’emendamento n. 2, come sancito dall’articolo 7 del protocollo, spetta allo Stato costiero, di comune accordo con la Comunità, decidere come utilizzare la contropartita finanziaria a sostegno della propria politica in materia di pesca. E’ quindi competenza delle autorità delle Seicelle individuare quali priorità della politica di pesca attuare con l’aiuto dell’accordo di pesca. Di conseguenza, l’emendamento n. 2 sarebbe in contrasto con questo diritto esercitato dal paese terzo con cui gli accordi vengono negoziati, benché si cerchi di influenzare e dare suggerimenti sull’utilizzo dei fondi nel rispetto delle norme previste dall’accordo raggiunto. Indubbiamente, lo sviluppo delle popolazioni costiere dipendenti dalla pesca è un settore su cui cerchiamo di insistere con gli Stati interessati e a cui occorre dare priorità assoluta. Con riferimento all’emendamento n. 3, condividiamo pienamente la necessità di tenere informato il Parlamento europeo sui vari aspetti dell’attuazione del protocollo. Benché la Commissione già si adoperi per trasmettere tali informazioni in linea con gli attuali accordi interistituzionali, valuterò il modo per migliorare questo processo di comunicazione e di discussione con il Parlamento europeo. Tuttavia, non posso impegnarmi in questa sede e approvare l’emendamento prima di avere esaminato tutte le implicazioni per le risorse disponibili nella mia DG, che ha un crescente numero di incombenze senza, però, un congruo aumento di organico. Questo punto è stato un problema – stiamo parlando di circa 30 accordi – e ho bisogno di fare una valutazione delle possibili implicazioni prima di impegnarmi. Sicuramente cercherò di trovare il modo per migliorare questo processo e, com’è auspicabile, per applicarlo agli accordi futuri: quando l’avremo applicato a un accordo diventerà una procedura in tutti gli accordi. Devo essere sicuro che se ci assumiamo un impegno siamo materialmente in grado di adempierlo, e insisto su questo punto. I problemi che abbiamo avuto sono legati alle lungaggini delle procedure interne, alle consultazioni con gli Stati membri nella fase iniziale e agli obblighi di traduzione che sono notevolmente aumentati – l’onorevole Stevenson vi ha fatto riferimento. Speriamo di trovare un rimedio a breve termine e a gennaio ne discuterò con il generale Morillon, in modo tale da elaborare una soluzione che spero sia accettabile per la commissione per la pesca e da evitare il ripetersi di questi disguidi, che risultano imbarazzanti per la Commissione e non danno al Parlamento europeo il tempo necessario per svolgere le sue legittime funzioni."@it¹² "Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@lv¹³ "Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@mt¹⁵ ". Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik zal het hebben over de vier amendementen die zijn ingediend. Ik herhaal dat de eventuele aanvaarding van amendement 1, dat betrekking heeft op een overweging, geen meerwaarde zou bieden. Ik ben voornemens dit te bespreken met de voorzitter van de Commissie visserij en met deze commissie zelf en hoop ervoor te zorgen dat de situatie, hopelijk voor eens en voor altijd, wordt opgelost. Het is de bedoeling dat de Commissie visserij voldoende tijd krijgt om de benodigde evaluatie te maken en op grond daarvan een advies te verstrekken over de voorgestelde overeenkomsten. Ten aanzien van amendement 2 verklaar ik dat het, zoals geschetst in artikel 7 van het protocol, aan de kuststaat is om in overleg met de Gemeenschap te besluiten op welke wijze de financiële bijdrage wordt aangewend ter ondersteuning van zijn visserijbeleid. Het valt dientengevolge onder de verantwoordelijkheid van de autoriteiten van de Seychellen om de hoofdprioriteiten vast te stellen van hun visserijbeleid, dat ten uitvoer gelegd moet worden met behulp van het protocol inzake de visserij. De strekking van amendement 2 druist derhalve in tegen een dergelijk recht dat wordt uitgeoefend door het derde land waarmee over zulke overeenkomsten wordt onderhandeld. We proberen echter wel om binnen de parameters van de bereikte overeenstemming invloed uit te oefenen en informatie in te winnen inzake de aanwending van de middelen. Als het gaat om de ontwikkeling van de bevolking van kuststreken die van de visserij leeft, hetgeen een topprioriteit zou moeten zijn, proberen we zeker invloed op de betreffende landen uit te oefenen. Ten aanzien van amendement 3 kan ik u mededelen dat wij het er volkomen mee eens zijn dat wij het Europees Parlement op de hoogte dienen te houden van de verschillende aspecten in verband met de tenuitvoerlegging van het protocol. De Commissie heeft evenwel reeds ingestemd met de indiening van dergelijke informatie in overeenstemming met de heersende interinstitutionele regelingen. Ik zal echter onderzoeken welke mogelijkheden er zijn om de communicatie en het overlegproces met het Europees Parlement te verbeteren. Ik kan echter niet beloven het amendement te aanvaarden voordat de gevolgen hiervan zijn beoordeeld voor de beschikbare hulpbronnen binnen mijn DG, waarbij het ook gaat om toegenomen verantwoordelijkheden zonder een toename van het personeel. Deze taak was een probleem – we hebben het over zo'n dertig overeenkomsten – en ik moet eerst beoordelen wat de gevolgen zijn voordat ik iets kan toezeggen. Ik zal zeker proberen oplossingen te bedenken die het proces optimaliseren en die we dan hopelijk bij toekomstige overeenkomsten kunnen aanwenden. Zodra we dat bij één overeenkomst hebben gedaan, zullen deze als standaardprocedure bij alle overeenkomsten worden gebruikt. Ik onderstreep dat ik zeker moet weten dat als we toezeggingen doen, we die ook echt kunnen waarmaken. Het probleem heeft te maken met de duur van de interne procedures, de raadpleging in een vroeg stadium van de lidstaten en het vertaalwerk, dat aanzienlijk is toegenomen – de heer Stevenson zei het al. We hopen op korte termijn het probleem aan te pakken, waarover ik in januari in gesprek zal gaan met generaal Morillon, zodat we kunnen werken aan een oplossing die naar ik hoop acceptabel zal zijn voor de Commissie visserij. Er moet voorkomen worden dat dit soort problemen zich blijven voordoen, want ze zijn niet alleen beschamend voor de Commissie, maar ze laten het Europees Parlement te weinig tijd om zijn rechtmatige taken uit te oefenen."@nl³ "Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, em primeiro lugar e no que se refere às quatro alterações que foram apresentadas, repito que a aceitação ou não da alteração 1 sobre um considerando não traria qualquer mais-valia. Comprometo-me a debater esta questão com o Presidente da Comissão das Pescas e com a própria comissão, de forma a encontrar uma solução permanente para que a situação possa ficar resolvida, esperamos, de uma vez por todas, e a Comissão das Pescas tenha tempo suficiente para fazer a sua necessária avaliação e emitir o competente parecer sobre os acordos propostos. No que respeita à alteração 2, e tal como consta do artigo 7º do Protocolo, compete ao país costeiro, em acordo com a Comunidade, decidir qual a forma como a contrapartida financeira deverá ser usada no apoio à sua política de pescas. Por conseguinte, compete às autoridades das Seychelles identificarem as principais prioridades da sua política de pescas a ser implementadas com a ajuda do acordo de pesca. Assim sendo, o âmbito da alteração 2 iria contrariar o exercício desse direito pelo país terceiro com quem tais acordos são negociados, embora tentemos influenciar e obter indicações no contexto dos parâmetros do acordo alcançado sobre a utilização das verbas. É óbvio que o desenvolvimento das populações costeiras que vivem da pesca é uma área que tentamos promover junto dos países em questão e à qual devia ser dada prioridade máxima. No que respeita à alteração 3, partilhamos inteiramente a preocupação de manter o Parlamento Europeu informado sobre os vários aspectos da implementação do Protocolo. A Comissão já respeita a necessidade de transmitir essa informação de acordo com as actuais disposições interinstitucionais. Contudo, irei procurar formas e instrumentos para melhorar este processo de comunicação e debate com o Parlamento Europeu. Não posso, no entanto, comprometer-me aqui e agora a aceitar a alteração antes de avaliar as suas implicações totais sobre os recursos à disposição da minha direcção-geral, com as responsabilidades acrescidas que temos e sem aumentar o número de pessoas à disposição. Esta tarefa foi problemática – estamos a falar de cerca de 30 acordos – e preciso de fazer uma avaliação do que isto implicaria antes de poder aceitar compromissos de actuação. Irei certamente procurar encontrar formas e instrumentos que permitam melhorar este processo e espero que possamos incluir essas considerações em futuros acordos, pois a partir do momento em que o fizermos num deles tal passará a ser uma característica comum a todos. Quero sublinhar que pretendo estar seguro de que, se assumirmos compromissos, seremos fisicamente capazes de os cumprir. O problema com que nos temos deparado até aqui reside na demora dos procedimentos internos, nas consultas numa fase inicial com os Estados-Membros e nos requisitos de tradução, que aumentaram consideravelmente, tal como o Deputado Stevenson referiu. Esperamos encontrar uma solução a curto prazo e irei debater esta questão com o Deputado Morillon em Janeiro para podermos encontrar uma solução que, espero, seja aceitável para a Comissão das Pescas e não permita que se repitam estas situações, que são embaraçosas para a Comissão e deixam o Parlamento Europeu sem tempo efectivo para desempenhar as suas legítimas funções."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, first of all, with regard to the four amendments that have been tabled, I repeat that, concerning acceptance or otherwise of Amendment 1, which is to a recital, it would not give any added value. I undertake to discuss this with the president of the Committee on Fisheries and with the committee itself, in order to find some solution on a permanent basis, so that the situation can be resolved, hopefully, once and for all, and the Fisheries Committee will have sufficient time to make its necessary evaluation and give its advice on the proposed agreements accordingly. Concerning Amendment 2, as stated in Article 7 of the Protocol, it is up to the coastal State, in agreement with the Community, to decide on the way the financial contribution will be used in support of its fisheries policy. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Seychelles authorities to identify the main priorities of their fisheries policy to be implemented with the assistance of the Fisheries Agreement. Therefore, the scope of Amendment 2 would run against such a right exercised by the third country with which such agreements are negotiated, although we try to influence and have indications within the parameters of the agreement reached on the uses of the funds. Certainly, the development of coastal populations living on fisheries is an area which we try to impress upon the States concerned and which should be given top priority. On Amendment 3, we fully share the concern to keep the European Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the Protocol. The Commission already complies with the transmission of such information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangements. However, I will look at ways and means to improve this communication and discussion process with the European Parliament. I cannot, however, commit myself here and now to accepting the amendment before I assess the full implications on the resources available at my DG, with the increased responsibilities that we have, without any increase in the number of people. This task was a problem – we are speaking about some 30 agreements – and I need to carry out an assessment of what this would imply before I can give positive commitments. I will certainly try to find ways and means whereby we can improve this process and hopefully have that included in future agreements; once we include it in one, it will become a standard feature in all agreements. I need to underline that I must be certain that if we undertake commitments, we will be able physically to fulfil them. The problem that we have faced so far lies in the length of the internal procedures, the consultations at an early stage with the Member States, and the translation requirements that have increased considerably – Mr Stevenson made reference to that. We hope to find a solution in the short term and I will be discussing it with General Morillon in January, so that we can work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the Fisheries Committee and will not have a repeat of such occurrences, which are embarrassing to the Commission and leave the European Parliament without real time to effect its rightful functions."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! När det för det första gäller de fyra ändringsförslag som har lagts fram upprepar jag att när det gäller godtagande eller annat av ändringsförslag 1, som avser ett skäl, skulle det inte bidra med något ytterligare värde. Jag lovar att diskutera detta med ordföranden i fiskeriutskottet och med utskottet självt, för att komma fram till en permanent lösning, så att situationen förhoppningsvis kan lösas en gång för alla, och fiskeriutskottet får tillräcklig tid för att göra sin nödvändiga utvärdering och ge sina råd om de föreslagna avtalen i enlighet med det. När det gäller ändringsförslag 2 är det, såsom sägs i artikel 7 i protokollet, upp till kuststaten att i överenskommelse med gemenskapen besluta om hur det ekonomiska bidraget ska användas till stöd för dess fiskeripolitik. Det åligger därför myndigheterna i Seychellerna att identifiera huvudprioriteringarna i sin fiskeripolitik som ska genomföras med hjälp av fiskeriavtalet. Därför skulle räckvidden för ändringsförslag 2 motverka att en sådan rättighet utövas av det tredjeland med vilket sådana avtal förhandlas fram, trots att vi försöker påverka och har indikationer inom parametrarna för det avtal som nås om användningen av medlen. Utvecklingen av kustbefolkningarna som lever på fiske är absolut ett område där vi försöker påverka de berörda staterna och som bör ges högsta prioritet. När det gäller ändringsförslag 3 delar vi helt åsikten att Europaparlamentet bör hållas informerat om de olika aspekterna på protokollets genomförande. Kommissionen uppfyller redan överföringen av sådan information i linje med de nuvarande arrangemangen mellan institutionerna. Jag ska dock se över olika sätt och metoder för att förbättra denna kommunikation och diskutera förfarandet med Europaparlamentet. Jag kan emellertid inte här och nu lova att godta ändringsförslaget innan jag har bedömt de fullständiga effekterna på de resurser som är tillgängliga på mitt generaldirektorat, med det ökade ansvar som vi har, utan att antalet anställda har ökat. Denna uppgift var ett problem – vi talar om cirka 30 avtal – och jag måste göra en bedömning av vad detta skulle innebära innan jag kan göra ett positivt åtagande. Jag kommer definitivt att försöka hitta sätt och metoder varigenom vi kan förbättra denna process och förhoppningsvis få in det i framtida avtal. När vi väl har fått in det i ett framtida avtal kommer det att bli ett standardinslag i alla avtal. Jag understryker att jag måste vara säker på att om vi gör åtaganden kommer vi att ha fysisk förmåga att uppfylla dem. Det problem som vi har haft hittills avser längden på de interna förfarandena, samråden i tidigt skede med medlemsstaterna, och översättningskraven som har ökat betydligt – Struan Stevenson nämnde det. Vi hoppas att vi ska kunna hitta en lösning på kort sikt och kommer att diskutera den med general Morillon i januari, så att vi kan arbeta fram en lösning som jag hoppas att fiskeriutskottet kommer att kunna godta och att sådana händelser inte kommer att upprepas, vilka är generande för kommissionen och lämnar Europaparlamentet utan egentlig tid att sätta sina rättmätiga funktioner i verket."@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} "standard"¹²