Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-261"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-04-04"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Infotund (küsimused Euroopa Komisjonile)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060404.23.2-261"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-04-04-Speech-2-262⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Joe Borg⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@cs¹ "Da denne lovgivning blev vedtaget som en undtagelse for den regel, der var blevet fastsat om, at det ikke længere var muligt at overføre fartøjer til tredjelande, blev den naturligvis underlagt visse betydelige restriktioner, hvoraf en f.eks. vedrørte fartøjernes længde. Jeg husker diskussionen her i Parlamentet om, at vi ikke måtte skabe en situation, hvor fartøjer blev overført til tredjelande ramt af tsunamien uden at stille nogen betingelser, for det kunne faktisk øge fiskeriindsatsen og dermed de problemer, der fandtes inden for visse typer fiskeri i de pågældende tredjelandsfarvande, men at fartøjerne skulle være formålstjenlige og hensigtsmæssige for det fiskeri, der traditionelt finder sted i de lande. Derfor havde vi restriktioner vedrørende fartøjernes størrelse, deres alder, det faktum, at de ikke måtte anvende trukne redskaber, og andre betingelser forbundet med økologisk ressourceforvaltning og sødygtighed. Når det er sagt, vil jeg understrege, at de svar, som vi har modtaget fra medlemsstaterne, om, hvorfor det ikke var muligt at finde fartøjer til overførsel til Sri Lanka, enten var, at der ikke var nogen hensigtsmæssige fartøjer til rådighed blandt de fartøjer, der skulle hugges op i visse medlemsstater, eller at man i andre medlemsstater ikke havde planlagt ophugning, eller at incitamenterne til overførsel af fartøjer ikke var gode nok. Jeg må også understrege, at dette var et initiativ fra Kommissionens side, som havde til formål at forsøge at hjælpe lande ramt af tsunamien, navnlig inden for fiskerisektoren, hvis der var mulighed for at gøre det. Der var et supplerende element i det, som derfor var hovedsigtet med bistanden, men mere under udviklingssamarbejdets overordnede paraply end under fiskeripolitikken. Det var en frivillig ekstramulighed, som ikke blev udnyttet. Jeg må understrege, at slutresultatet var, at visse medlemsstater ydede bistand til de tsunamiramte lande ved at give midler til erhvervelse af fartøjer, som er blevet købt uden nogen kontrolforanstaltninger. Slutresultatet i dag er, at der er en betydeligt større flåde i de tsunamiramte områder, som skaber et langt større pres på fiskeriindsatsen end tidligere og skaber yderligere problemer. I stedet for at der gås i retning af bæredygtigt fiskeri, er der ifølge de oplysninger, vi råder over, betydeligt flere problemer, end der var før."@da² ". Als dieses Gesetz mittels Ausnahmeregelung in Kraft gesetzt wurde, der zufolge es nicht mehr möglich war, Schiffe in Drittländer zu überführen, wurden natürlich bestimmte Beschränkungen eingeführt, die u. a. die Länge derartiger Schiffe betreffen. Ich kann mich noch gut an die Diskussion hier im Parlament erinnern, bei der gefordert wurde, wir sollten keine Überführung von Schiffen in vom Tsunami betroffene Drittländer zulassen, ohne diese an bestimmte Bedingungen zu knüpfen, denn dies könnte zu einer Erhöhung des Fischereiaufwands beitragen und damit die Probleme bei bestimmten Fischereitätigkeiten in den Gewässern der Drittländer verstärken. Stattdessen sollten die Fischereifahrzeuge seetüchtig und für die traditionell in jenen Ländern ausgeführte Fischereitätigkeit geeignet sein. Folglich mussten wir Beschränkungen in Bezug auf Größe und Alter der Schiffe, das Vorhandensein von Schleppgeräten sowie andere Bedingungen in Bezug auf die Bewirtschaftung der Meeresressourcen und die Seetüchtigkeit vorsehen. Dabei muss ich jedoch betonen, dass als Begründung dafür, weshalb keine Schiffe für die Überführung nach Sri Lanka ermittelt werden konnten, von den Mitgliedstaaten angeführt wurde, dass sich entweder unter den in bestimmten Mitgliedstaaten stillzulegenden Schiffen keine geeigneten Schiffe befanden oder dass in bestimmten anderen Mitgliedstaaten keine Stilllegungen vorgesehen waren oder dass die Anreize für die Überführung von Schiffen nicht ausreichend attraktiv waren. Ich möchte ferner unterstreichen, dass die Kommission mit dieser Initiative den vom Tsunami betroffenen Ländern helfen wollte, und zwar nach Möglichkeit im Bereich der Fischereitätigkeit. Diese Initiative wies ein Element der Additionalität auf, die den Kern der Hilfe bildete, die allerdings in den großen Bereich der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit und nicht den der Fischerei einzuordnen war. Es handelte sich um eine zusätzliche Möglichkeit, die nicht in Anspruch genommen wurde. Ich muss betonen, dass letztlich einzelne Mitgliedstaaten die vom Tsunami betroffenen Länder dadurch unterstützten, dass sie Mittel für den Erwerb von Fischereifahrzeugen bereitstellten, die ohne jegliche Kontrollmaßnahmen gekauft wurden. Das hatte schließlich zur Folge, dass in den vom Tsunami betroffenen Gebieten heute eine wesentliche größere Flotte existiert, die den Druck auf den Fischereiaufwand verstärkt und zu weiteren Problemen führt. Die uns vorliegenden Informationen deuten darauf hin, dass die Fischerei, anstatt sich nachhaltig zu entwickeln, heute wesentlich mehr Probleme als vorher aufweist."@de⁹ "Προφανώς, όταν τέθηκε σε ισχύ η παρούσα νομοθεσία, κατ’ εξαίρεση του ισχύοντος κανόνα, σύμφωνα με τον οποίο δεν ήταν πλέον δυνατή η μεταβίβαση σκαφών σε τρίτες χώρες, τέθηκαν ορισμένοι σημαντικοί περιορισμοί, ένας εκ των οποίων, επί παραδείγματι, αφορούσε το μήκος των σκαφών. Θυμάμαι τη συζήτηση εδώ στο Κοινοβούλιο ότι δεν έπρεπε να επιτρέψουμε μια κατάσταση κατά την οποία θα μεταβιβάζονταν σκάφη σε τρίτες χώρες που είχαν πληγεί από το τσουνάμι χωρίς την επιβολή οιωνδήποτε όρων επειδή αυτό θα μπορούσε, αναμφισβήτητα, να αυξήσει την αλιευτική προσπάθεια και συνεπώς να εντείνει τα υπάρχοντα προβλήματα στην αλιεία στα ύδατα των εν λόγω τρίτων χωρών, αλλά ότι τα σκάφη έπρεπε να είναι κατάλληλα και ενδεδειγμένα για την αλιεία που διεξαγόταν παραδοσιακά σε αυτές τις χώρες. Συνεπώς, είχαμε περιορισμούς όσον αφορά το μέγεθος των σκαφών, την ηλικία των σκαφών, το γεγονός ότι τα σκάφη δεν έπρεπε να χρησιμοποιούν ρυμουλκούμενα εργαλεία και άλλους όρους που αφορούσαν την οικολογική διαχείριση των πόρων και την αξιοπλοΐα. Τούτου λεχθέντος, πρέπει να υπογραμμίσω το γεγονός ότι οι απαντήσεις που έχουμε λάβει από τα κράτη μέλη όσον αφορά τον λόγο για τον οποίο δεν ήταν δυνατόν να εξευρεθούν σκάφη για μεταβίβαση στη Σρι Λάνκα ήταν είτε ότι δεν υπήρχαν διαθέσιμα κατάλληλα σκάφη μεταξύ αυτών που επρόκειτο να παροπλιστούν σε ορισμένα κράτη μέλη, ή ότι δεν προβλεπόταν παροπλισμός σε ορισμένα κράτη μέλη, ή ότι τα κίνητρα που παρέχονταν για τη μεταβίβαση των σκαφών δεν ήταν αρκετά δελεαστικά. Πρέπει να υπογραμμίσω επίσης το γεγονός ότι η ιδέα αυτή ήταν μια κοινοτική πρωτοβουλία η οποία αποσκοπούσε στην παροχή βοήθειας στις χώρες που επλήγησαν από το τσουνάμι, όσον αφορά ειδικά τον αλιευτικό τομέα, εάν υπήρχε προοπτική να γίνει αυτό. Υπήρχε ένα στοιχείο προσθετικότητας το οποίο ήταν συνεπώς το κύριο κίνητρο παροχής βοήθειας, αν και υπαγόταν μάλλον περισσότερο στο πλαίσιο της αναπτυξιακής συνεργασίας και όχι στο πλαίσιο του χαρτοφυλακίου για την αλιεία. Ήταν ένα «προαιρετικό επιπλέον στοιχείο» το οποίο δεν έγινε δεκτό. Πρέπει να υπογραμμίσω ότι το τελικό αποτέλεσμα ήταν ότι ορισμένα μεμονωμένα κράτη μέλη προσέφεραν βοήθεια στις πληγείσες από το τσουνάμι χώρες παρέχοντας κονδύλια για την απόκτηση σκαφών τα οποία αγοράστηκαν χωρίς μέτρα ελέγχου. Το τελικό αποτέλεσμα σήμερα είναι ότι υπάρχει ένας πολύ μεγαλύτερος στόλος στις πληγείσες από το τσουνάμι περιοχές, γεγονός το οποίο ασκεί πολύ μεγαλύτερη πίεση από ό,τι παλαιότερα και δημιουργεί περαιτέρω προβλήματα. Αντί της μετάβασης προς μια βιώσιμη αλιεία, σύμφωνα με τις πληροφορίες που έχουμε, υπάρχουν πολύ περισσότερα προβλήματα από ό,τι στο παρελθόν."@el¹⁰ ". Está claro que cuando se promulgó esta legislación, por vía de excepción a la regla que se había establecido, con arreglo a la cual ya no era posible trasladar barcos a terceros países, se hizo con algunas restricciones importantes, una de las cuales se refiere, por ejemplo, a la eslora de los barcos. Recuerdo el debate aquí en el Parlamento de que no deberíamos permitir una situación en la que los barcos se trasladaran a terceros países afectados por el tsunami sin imponer ninguna condición porque eso podría suponer, en las actuales circunstancias, un aumento del esfuerzo pesquero e intensificar por consiguiente los problemas que existían en algunas pesquerías de esas aguas de terceros países, sino que los barcos deberían ser adecuados y apropiados para las pesquerías tradicionales de esos países. Por consiguiente, se establecieron restricciones con respecto al tamaño de los barcos, su edad, el hecho de que los barcos no debían usar aparejos de arrastre y otras condiciones relativas a la gestión de recursos ecológicos y a la navegabilidad. Dicho esto, debo subrayar el hecho de que las respuestas que hemos recibido de los Estados miembros sobre el motivo por el que no era posible detectar barcos para trasladarlos a Sri Lanka eran o bien que no había barcos apropiados disponibles entre los que tenían que desguazarse en determinados Estados miembros, o que el desguace no estaba previsto en algunos otros Estados miembros, o que los incentivos para el traslado de barcos no eran suficientemente atractivos. Debo subrayar también el hecho de que esta era una iniciativa de la Comisión destinada a intentar ayudar a los países afectados por el tsunami, con respecto específicamente al sector pesquero, si había la oportunidad de hacerlo. Era un elemento adicional que fue por consiguiente el principal objetivo de la ayuda, aunque bajo el paraguas general de la cooperación al desarrollo en lugar de la cartera pesquera. Fue un «extra optativo» que no se utilizó. Debo subrayar que el resultado final fue que algunos Estados miembros particulares ayudaron a los países afectados por el tsunami facilitando fondos para la adquisición de barcos, que fueron comprados sin ninguna medida de control. El resultado final hoy es que hay una flota significativamente mayor en las zonas afectadas por el tsunami, lo que crea mucha más presión que antes sobre el esfuerzo pesquero y genera más problemas. En lugar de avanzar en dirección a la pesca sostenible, de acuerdo con la información que tenemos hay muchos más problemas que los que había antes."@es²⁰ "Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@et⁵ "Kun tämä lainsäädäntötoimi vahvistettiin, siinä poikettiin vahvistetusta säännöstä, jonka mukaan kalastusaluksia ei enää ollut mahdollista siirtää kolmansiin maihin, ja siinä asetettiin eräitä huomattavia rajoituksia, joista yksi koski esimerkiksi alusten pituutta. Muistan, kun keskustelimme tuolloin parlamentissa siitä, että emme saa sallia alusten siirtämistä hyökyaallosta kärsineisiin kolmansiin maihin ilman mitään ehtoja, sillä se saattaisi itse asiassa lisätä pyyntiponnistusten määrää ja kärjistää tätä kautta kyseisten kolmansien maiden aluevesien kalastusongelmia. Alusten olisi sen sijaan oltava näissä maissa perinteisesti harjoitettavaan kalastukseen sopivia. Siksi asetimme alusten kokoon ja ikään liittyviä rajoituksia ja päätimme, ettei aluksissa saa käyttää vedettäviä pyydyksiä. Asetimme muitakin ehtoja, jotka liittyivät luonnonvarojen hoitoon ja merikelpoisuuteen. Haluan kuitenkin korostaa, että tiedustelimme jäsenvaltioilta, miksi ne eivät pystyneet yksilöimään aluksia, jotka olisi voitu siirtää Sri Lankaan, ja ne vastasivat, että joissakin jäsenvaltioissa käytöstä poistettavien alusten joukossa ei ollut siirrettäväksi sopivia aluksia, ja toisissa jäsenvaltioissa taas ei ollut suunnitteilla alusten käytöstä poistamista. Myöskään alusten siirtämiseen tarjottuja kannustimia ei pidetty riittävän houkuttelevina. Haluan lisäksi painottaa, että tämä oli komission aloite, jonka tarkoituksena oli auttaa hyökyaallosta kärsineitä maita ja etenkin niiden kalastusalaa, jos se vain olisi mahdollista. Koska tuen tarvekin oli poikkeuksellinen, kysymys oli ylimääräisestä tuesta, vaikka se toteutettiinkin osana kehitysyhteistyötä eikä osana kalastuspolitiikkaa. Se oli valinnainen lisätuki, jota ei käytetty. Haluan korostaa, että lopputuloksena tietyt yksittäiset jäsenvaltiot auttoivat hyökyaallosta kärsineitä maita tarjoamalla varoja alusten hankkimiseen, ja niitä hankittiin ilman valvontaa. Tämän vuoksi hyökyaallosta kärsineissä maissa on nyt huomattavasti aiempaa suuremmat kalastuslaivastot, mikä lisää merkittävästi pyyntiponnistusten määrää ja aiheuttaa lisää ongelmia. Sen sijaan, että alueella olisi siirrytty kohti kestävää kalastusta, siellä on komission saamien tietojen mukaan nyt aiempaa huomattavasti enemmän ongelmia."@fi⁷ ". À l’évidence, lorsque cette législation a été adoptée en tant qu’exception à la règle précédemment établie selon laquelle il n’était plus possible d’effectuer des transferts de navires vers des pays tiers, elle a été soumise à certaines restrictions significatives, l’une d’entre elles portant, par exemple, sur la longueur des navires. Je me souviens du débat ici au Parlement, dont il ressortait que nous ne devions pas permettre une situation dans laquelle des navires seraient transférés vers des pays tiers frappés par le tsunami sans que des conditions ne soient imposées, parce que cela aurait pu, en réalité, accroître l’effort de pêche et, partant, exacerber les problèmes de certaines zones de pêche dans les eaux de ces pays tiers, mais que les navires devaient être conformes et appropriés aux pêches traditionnellement réalisées dans ces pays. Nous avons donc imposé des restrictions en ce qui concerne la taille des navires, leur âge, le fait que les navires ne devaient pas utiliser d’engins traînants ainsi que d’autres conditions liées à la gestion des ressources écologiques et à la navigabilité. Cela dit, je dois souligner que les réponses que nous avons reçues des États membres quant à la raison pour laquelle il n’était pas possible d’identifier des navires à transférer à Sri Lanka étaient soit qu’il n’y avait pas de navires appropriés disponibles parmi ceux destinés au déclassement dans certains États membres, soit que le déclassement n’était pas prévu dans certains autres États membres, soit que les mesures d’incitation proposées pour le transfert de navires n’étaient pas suffisamment attrayantes. Je dois également souligner le fait qu’il s’agissait d’une initiative de la Commission dans le but de venir en aide aux pays touchés par le tsunami - à leur secteur de la pêche en particulier -, dans la mesure où cette possibilité existait. Il y avait là un élément d’additionnalité, qui était donc l’idée maîtresse de l’aide apportée, quoique dans le cadre général de la coopération au développement plutôt que dans celui de la pêche. C’était un «supplément optionnel», qui n’a pas été mis à profit. Je dois dire que, au final, certains États membres sont venus en aide aux pays touchés par le tsunami en fournissant des fonds pour l’acquisition de navires qui ont été achetés sans la moindre mesure de contrôle. En dernière analyse, il en résulte que la flotte des régions touchées par le tsunami est aujourd’hui bien plus conséquente, ce qui accroît la pression sur l’effort de pêche et crée de nouveaux problèmes. Plutôt que de se diriger vers une pêche plus durable, les informations dont nous disposons indiquent que les problèmes sont bien plus nombreux qu’avant."@fr⁸ "Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@hu¹¹ "Quando la normativa è stata emanata in deroga alla norma prevista, che da quel momento vietava il trasferimento di navi a paesi terzi, è stata ovviamente subordinata ad alcune importanti restrizioni, una delle quali, ad esempio, legata alla lunghezza delle imbarcazioni. Ricordo la discussione che abbiamo avuto qui, in Parlamento, in cui si diceva che non potevamo permettere il trasferimento di navi a paesi terzi colpiti dallo senza imporre condizioni perché questo, in realtà, avrebbe potuto aumentare lo sforzo di pesca e, di conseguenza, aggravare i problemi esistenti in alcune zone di pesca nelle acque dei paesi terzi, ma che le navi dovevano essere adatte e adeguate alla pesca tradizionalmente svolta in quei paesi. Abbiamo quindi imposto restrizioni sulle dimensioni e l’età delle navi, sul fatto che non dovessero usare reti da traino e altre condizioni legate alla gestione delle risorse ecologiche e alla navigabilità. Detto questo, sottolineo il fatto che le risposte ricevute dagli Stati membri sul motivo per cui non era possibile trovare navi da trasferire in Sri Lanka indicavano che tra le navi in disarmo di alcuni Stati membri non erano disponibili imbarcazioni adeguate, che il disarmo non era previsto in altri Stati membri o che gli incentivi offerti per il trasferimento di navi non erano abbastanza allettanti. Vorrei inoltre ricordare che si è trattata di un’iniziativa della Commissione tesa ad aiutare i paesi vittima dello specificamente nel settore della pesca, se ce ne fosse stata la possibilità. L’assistenza si è quindi basata su questo elemento aggiuntivo, seppur fornito nel quadro del programma generale di cooperazione allo sviluppo e non in quello degli aiuti al settore della pesca. Si è trattato di un “sovrappiù opzionale” che non è stato preso in considerazione. Sottolineo che, alla fine, alcuni Stati membri hanno fornito assistenza ai paesi colpiti dallo stanziando fondi per l’acquisizione di navi comprate senza controlli. Il risultato, oggi, è che nelle zone colpite dallo la flotta è molto più numerosa, esercita molte più pressioni sullo sforzo di pesca rispetto a prima e crea ulteriori problemi. Invece di spingersi verso una pesca sostenibile, in base alle informazioni che abbiamo, ci sono molti più problemi rispetto al passato."@it¹² "Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@lt¹⁴ "Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@lv¹³ "Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@mt¹⁵ "Deze wetgeving is ontworpen als uitzondering op de gestelde regel, op grond waarvan vaartuigen niet langer naar derde landen konden worden overgebracht. Het is duidelijk dat voor deze wetgeving bepaalde omvangrijke beperkingen gelden, bijvoorbeeld wat betreft de lengte van de vaartuigen. Ik herinner me de discussie in het Parlement waarbij we tot de slotsom kwamen dat er geen vaartuigen naar door de tsunami getroffen landen mochten worden overgebracht zonder daaraan voorwaarden te stellen. Daardoor zou namelijk de bevissing kunnen toenemen en dat zou er weer toe leiden dat de bestaande problemen op bepaalde visgronden in deze wateren van derde landen zouden verergeren. De vaartuigen moesten geschikt zijn voor en afgestemd zijn op de visserij die vanouds in deze landen plaatsvond. Daarom hebben we beperkingen gesteld aan de grootte en de leeftijd van de vaartuigen, we hebben bepaald dat de vaartuigen geen gesleept vistuig mochten gebruiken en we hebben nog andere voorwaarden gesteld die te maken hadden met het beheer van de ecologische hulpbronnen en zeewaardigheid. Op de vraag aan de lidstaten waarom zij geen vaartuigen konden aanwijzen voor overbrenging naar Sri Lanka, kregen we onder meer als antwoord dat er geen passende vaartuigen waren onder de boten die uit de vaart werden genomen of dat er helemaal geen vaartuigen uit de vaart zouden worden genomen of dat de prikkels voor de overbrenging van vaartuigen niet aantrekkelijk genoeg waren. Dat wil ik hier duidelijk onderstrepen. Ook wil ik benadrukken dat het hier om een initiatief van de Commissie ging waarmee getracht werd zo mogelijk de door de tsunami getroffen landen te helpen, en dan met name de visserijsector. Bij de steun werd uitgegaan van het additionaliteitsbeginsel, hoewel deze plaatsvond onder de paraplu van ontwikkelingssamenwerking en niet van de visserij. Het was een facultatieve extra steunmogelijkheid waarvan geen gebruik werd gemaakt. Ik wil beklemtonen dat uiteindelijk enkele individuele lidstaten de door de tsunami getroffen landen hebben gesteund door fondsen te verstrekken voor de aanschaf van vaartuigen die zonder enige controle werden gekocht. Hierdoor is er nu een aanzienlijk grotere vloot in de door de tsunami geteisterde gebieden dan voorheen, wat leidt tot een veel grotere druk op de visserijsector en tot nieuwe problemen. Volgens de informatie waarover wij beschikken, is dit geen stap in de richting van een duurzame visserij, maar zijn er nu aanmerkelijk meer problemen dan vroeger."@nl³ "Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@pl¹⁶ "Obviamente que quando esta legislação foi aprovada, como uma excepção à regra que havia sido estipulada, ao abrigo da qual já não era possível efectuar transferências de navios para países terceiros, ficou submetida a determinadas restrições importantes, sendo que uma delas se relacionava, por exemplo, com o comprimento dos navios. Lembro-me da discussão neste Parlamento em que se sublinhava que não devíamos permitir uma situação em que os navios fossem transferidos para países terceiros afectados pelo sem impor determinadas condições, dado que se podia, de facto, aumentar o esforço de pesca, intensificando assim os problemas das actividades de pesca nas águas desses países terceiros; logo, os navios deveriam ser adequados e apropriados para as actividades de pesca que tradicionalmente tinham lugar nesses países. Tínhamos pois restrições ligadas à dimensão dos navios, à idade dos navios, ao facto de os navios não deverem aplicar a arte de arrasto; bem como outras condições ainda relacionadas com a gestão ecológica de recursos e a navegabilidade. Posto isto, devo sublinhar que as respostas que recebemos dos Estados-Membros justificando a impossibilidade de transferir navios para o Sri Lanka se prendiam, ou com o facto de os navios disponíveis, entre aqueles que seriam desactivados, não serem adequados, ou com o facto de a retirada dos barcos da faina não estar prevista em certos Estados-Membros, ou ainda com o facto de os incentivos oferecidos para a transferência dos navios não serem suficientemente atractivos. Devo também referir que aquela foi uma iniciativa da Comissão que visava, especificamente, ajudar o sector das pescas dos países afectados pelo se houvesse margem para o fazer. Havia portanto um elemento de adicionalidade que era a ideia principal da ajuda, ainda que, ao abrigo do dispositivo geral da cooperação para o desenvolvimento e não ao abrigo do dossiê “pescas”. Tratou-se de um “opção suplementar” que não foi aceite. Chamo a atenção para o facto de que o resultado final foi que alguns Estados-Membros, individualmente, prestaram ajuda aos países afectados pelo disponibilizando fundos para a aquisição de navios que foram comprados sem quaisquer medidas de controlo. O resultado final, hoje, é que existe uma frota de pesca nas zonas afectadas pelo significativamente maior, o que gera uma pressão muito maior em termos de esforço de pesca do que anteriormente, para além de outros problemas. Em vez de se avançar na direcção da pesca sustentável, segundo a informação de que dispomos, existem muito mais problemas do que antes."@pt¹⁷ "Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@sk¹⁸ "Obviously, when this legislation was enacted, by way of exception to the rule that had been established, under which it was no longer possible to effect transfers of vessels to third countries, it was made subject to certain significant restrictions, one of which related, for example, to the length of the vessels. I remember the discussion here in Parliament that we should not allow a situation where vessels would be transferred to third countries stricken by the tsunami without imposing any conditions because that could, in actual fact, increase the fishing effort and therefore intensify the problems that existed in certain fisheries in those third-country waters, but that the vessels should be suitable and appropriate to the fisheries that were traditionally carried out in those countries. Therefore, we had restrictions with regard to the size of vessels, the age of vessels, the fact that vessels should not use towed gear and other conditions relating to ecological resource management and seaworthiness. Having said that, I must underline the fact that the responses we have received from the Member States on why it was not possible to identify vessels for transfer to Sri Lanka were either that there were no appropriate vessels available among those to be decommissioned in certain Member States, or that decommissioning was not foreseen in certain other Member States, or that the incentives provided for the transfer of vessels were not sufficiently attractive. I must also underline the fact that this was a Commission initiative aimed at trying to help the countries affected by the tsunami, with regard to the fisheries sector specifically, if there was scope to do so. There was an element of additionality which was therefore the main thrust of the assistance, albeit under the general umbrella of development cooperation rather than under the fisheries portfolio. It was an ‘optional extra’ that was not taken up. I must underline that the end result was that certain individual Member States gave assistance to the tsunami-affected countries by providing funds for the acquisition of vessels which have been purchased without any control measures. The end result today is that there is a significantly larger fleet in the tsunami-affected areas, which creates much more pressure on the fishing effort than before and creates further problems. Rather than moving in the direction of sustainable fisheries, according to the information we have, there are significantly more problems than there were before."@sl¹⁹ ". När denna lagstiftning antogs, som ett undantag från den fastställda regeln, enligt vilken det inte längre var möjligt att överföra fartyg till tredjeländer, underkastades den självklart vissa betydande restriktioner, varav en till exempel gällde fartygens längd. Jag minns diskussionen här i kammaren om att vi inte borde tillåta en situation där fartyg skulle överföras till tredjeländer som drabbats av tsunamin utan att införa några krav, eftersom detta i själva verket skulle kunna öka fiskeansträngningen och därmed förvärra de problem som till viss del förekom vid särskilt fiske i dessa tredjeländers vatten. Fartygen skulle i stället vara ändamålsenliga och lämpade för det fiske som traditionellt utfördes i dessa länder. Därför införde vi restriktioner när det gällde fartygens storlek, fartygens ålder, det faktum att fartygen inte skulle använda släpredskap samt andra villkor som hörde samman med ekologisk resursstyrning och sjöduglighet. Mot bakgrund av detta måste jag understryka att i de svar som vi har fått in från medlemsstaterna om varför det inte var möjligt att tillhandahålla fartyg för överföring till Sri Lanka säger man att det berodde på att det inte fanns lämpliga fartyg tillgängliga bland dem som skulle tas ur bruk i vissa medlemsstater, att man inte hade planerat för avvecklingen i vissa andra medlemsstater, eller att de incitament som erbjöds för att överföra fartyg inte var tillräckligt lockande. Jag måste också understryka att detta var ett kommissionsinitiativ som syftade till att försöka bistå de länder, och särskilt fiskesektorn, som drabbats av tsunamin, om det fanns möjlighet att göra det. Det fanns ett inslag av additionalitet som därför utgjorde grundval för stödet, om än inom den generella ramen för utvecklingssamarbete snarare än inom fiskeriportföljen. Det var ett ”extraalternativ” som inte togs upp. Jag måste understryka att slutresultatet blev att vissa enskilda medlemsstater stödde de tsunamidrabbade länderna genom att ge medel för att förvärva fartyg som har köpts in utan några kontrollåtgärder. Dagens slutresultat är att det finns en betydligt större flotta i de tsunamidrabbade områdena, som skapar ett mycket större tryck på fiskeansträngningen än tidigare och som skapar ytterligare problem. I stället för att gå mot hållbart fiske finns det betydligt fler problem än tidigare, enligt de uppgifter vi har."@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} "tsunami"^17,12