Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060515.18.1-173"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@cs1
"Hr. formand, først vil jeg gerne takke hr. Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for hans indledende bemærkninger. Jeg har fuld forståelse for de punkter, han tog op vedrørende overvågning, og jeg har ingen problemer med at holde Fiskeriudvalget underrettet om, hvordan aftalen gennemføres i praksis. Jeg deler fuldt ud ønsket om at holde Parlamentet underrettet om de forskellige aspekter af gennemførelsen af protokollen. Jeg vil gerne understrege, at Kommissionen allerede nu overholder kravene om fremsendelse af oplysninger i henhold til de gældende institutionelle aftaler. Vi har også fortsat diskussionerne med formanden for og medlemmerne af Fiskeriudvalget med henblik på at prøve at forbedre den nuværende informationsudveksling og dialog, navnlig med hensyn til indgåelsen og den efterfølgende opfølgning af fiskeriaftalerne.
Som svar på fru Sudres og hr. Kristensens indlæg vil jeg sige, at aftalen i sig selv allerede garanterer lokalbefolkningen visse fordele. Navnlig med hensyn til pelagisk industrifiskeri, som er fokuseret på C-bestanden, indeholder aftalen en forpligtelse om at lande 25 % af fangsterne. Hovedformålet med denne bestemmelse er at bidrage til bedre leverancer af pelagiske fisk til forædlingsindustrien, som i de senere år har lidt under uregelmæssige og utilstrækkelige leverancer af råvarer. Der er således indført yderligere økonomiske incitamenter for at tilskynde pelagiske fartøjer til at lande en større del af deres fangster, mere end de obligatoriske 25 %, i de lokale havne mod syd.
Ud over ovennævnte landingsforpligtelser indeholder aftalen også bestemmelser vedrørende tjenester og infrastrukturaktiviteter i de lokale havne mod syd. Dette giver yderligere indtægter og bidrager til udviklingen af disse havne. Aftalen sikrer også yderligere støtte til udvikling af kystområdet gennem følgende økonomiske foranstaltninger. I aftalen afsættes der et beløb på mindst 4,75 millioner euro om året til modernisering og opgradering af kystfiskerflåden. Det specificeres ligeledes i aftalen, at en del af det økonomiske bidrag bl.a. skal bruges til omstrukturering af småfiskeriet, uddannelse og støtte til brancheorganisationer. Det pelagiske industrifiskeri forpligtes til at lande 25 % af alle fangster i de lokale havne. Denne forpligtelse er medtaget i aftalen for at støtte udviklingen af den lokale fiskeindustri, der lider under uregelmæssige eller utilstrækkelige leverancer af råvarer.
Vedrørende de punkter, som fru Fraga Estévez tog op, navnlig med hensyn til blæksprutter og skaldyr, vil jeg gerne understrege, at artikel 4 i denne protokol giver mulighed for at revidere fiskerimulighederne i henhold til aftalen, hvis de videnskabelige rapporter påviser en forbedring af visse bestande. På grundlag af konklusionerne fra de årlige møder i den Videnskabelige Komité kan de to parter i fællesskab aftale at ændre de nuværende fiskerimuligheder, når blot man sikrer en bæredygtig forvaltning af ressourcerne.
Fiskerimulighederne i henhold til aftalen afspejler den samlede mængde af tilgængelige arter som anbefalet i den videnskabelige rapport samt dem marokkanske flådes fiskeriindsats. Kommissionen har ikke til hensigt at genåbne diskussionen om dette spørgsmål, undtagen inden for rammerne af artikel 4. Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om de nærmere bestemmelser er de nærmere bestemmelser, der henvises til, bestemt vigtige, men jeg vil gerne understrege, at der er tale om tekniske spørgsmål, som i kraft af deres karakter ikke defineres i aftalen.
De nærmere tekniske bestemmelser som brugen af lamparo, antallet af kroge på langliner og spørgsmålet om fangster inden for det pelagiske industrifiskeri vil blive finpudset under det første møde i det fælles udvalg, der indkaldes, når aftalen er trådt i kraft, og vi har bestemt ingen problemer med at holde Parlamentet og hele sektoren fuldt underrettet. Der kan fremlægges oplysninger om tekniske ændringer ved vores regelmæssige lukkede møder. Det næste er planlagt til den 21. juni, og hvis vi til den tid allerede har været i kontakt med marokkanerne, vil vi bestemt aflægge rapport til Fiskeriudvalget om resultaterne af disse kontakter.
Fru Fraga Estévez spurgte, hvor langt Marokko er nået med hensyn til at færdiggøre vedtagelsen af aftalen. Ifølge vores oplysninger forløber alt uden problemer. Vi er ikke vidende om, at der skulle være særlige problemer på den marokkanske side. Aftalen burde derfor blive vedtaget af det marokkanske parlament, så snart vi har vedtaget den en gang i juni.
Jeg vil gerne takke alle, der har udtrykt støtte til den aftale, vi er nået frem tid. Med hensyn til fru Corbeys punkt om en forhåndsevaluering kan jeg sige, at denne blev fremsendt til Fiskeriudvalgets formand i september og uddelt til alle Fiskeriudvalgets medlemmer.
Med hensyn til de punkter, som fru Attwooll og en række andre medlemmer tog op, vil jeg gentage, at hvad angår Vestsahara er ordlyden i aftalen valgt med stor omhu. Jeg gentager, at den hverken definerer eller foregriber de pågældende farvandes juridiske status. Igen til det, hr. Schlyter, hr. Schlyter, hr. Guerreiro og andre sagde om spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Marokko kan indgå aftaler om udnyttelsen af naturressourcer i Vestsahara, giver FN's juridiske rådgiver et klart svar. Selv om FN aldrig har anerkendt Marokkos administrative beføjelser i henhold til artikel 73 i De Forenede Nationers Charter, og Marokko ikke står opført som havende administrative beføjelser over området på FN's liste over ikke-selvstyrende territorier - dette er punkt 7 i udtalelsen fra FN's juridiske rådgiver - kan der indgås aftaler med Kongeriget Marokko om udnyttelse af Vestsaharas naturressourcer.
I FN's juridiske rådgivers fortolkning anerkendes Marokkos kompetence til at indgå denne type aftaler, og på denne måde anerkender man, at Marokko de facto har de administrative beføjelser på Vestsaharas område; det mandat, som Rådet gav Kommissionen, gik ud på at forhandle med Kongeriget Marokko.
Inden for rammerne af disse aftaler søger folkeretten af sikre folks og nationers ret til at udnytte og råde over naturressourcerne inden for deres område. I den henseende anses aftalerne for at være i overensstemmelse med Charterets krav om administrative beføjelser og i overensstemmelse med Generalforsamlingens resolution og det deri indeholdte princip om permanent suverænitet over naturressourcer, hvis udnyttelsen af ressourcerne i ikke-selvstyrende områder anses for at være til gavn for befolkningen i de pågældende områder, på vegne af disse eller i samråd med deres repræsentanter. I den henseende har Marokko pligt til at træffe alle nødvendige foranstaltninger for at sikre den fuldstændige anvendelse af fiskeripartnerskabsaftalen EF-Marokko i overensstemmelse med folkeretten."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Ich danke zunächst Herrn Varela Suanzes-Carpegna für seine einleitenden Worte. Was er zum Thema Überwachung vorgebracht hat, verstehe ich voll und ganz, und ich kann den Fischereiausschuss gern über die Umsetzung des Abkommens auf dem Laufenden halten. Auch ich bin sehr daran interessiert, das Parlament über die verschiedenen Aspekte der Umsetzung des Protokolls zu informieren. Ich möchte betonen, dass die Kommission die Anforderungen hinsichtlich der Bereitstellung von Informationen wie in den gegenwärtigen institutionellen Vereinbarungen vorgesehen bereits erfüllt. Wir haben auch die Gespräche mit dem Vorsitzenden und den Mitgliedern des Fischereiausschusses fortgesetzt, um den Informationsaustausch und Dialog zu verbessern, speziell in Bezug auf den Abschluss und die Wirkungskontrolle geschlossener Fischereiabkommen.
Zu den von Frau Sudre und Herrn Kristensen geäußerten Bedenken möchte ich anmerken, dass das Abkommen selbst bereits gewisse Vorteile für die einheimische Bevölkerung garantiert. Insbesondere in der Frage der industriellen pelagischen Fischerei, die sich auf Bestand C konzentriert, sieht das Abkommen die Verpflichtung zur Anlandung von 25 % des Fangs vor. Hauptzweck dieser Regelung ist es, die Versorgung der verarbeitenden Industrie, die in den letzten Jahren unter unregelmäßigen und knappen Rohstofflieferungen zu leiden hatte, mit pelagischem Fisch zu verbessern. Es sind daher für Schiffe mit pelagischem Fang zusätzliche ökonomische Anreize vorgesehen, mehr als die vorgeschriebenen 25 % ihres Fangs in den Häfen im Süden anzulanden.
Neben der genannten Anlandeverpflichtung enthält das Abkommen auch Regelungen zu Dienstleistungen und Infrastrukturaktivitäten in den Häfen im Süden. Dies sorgt für zusätzliche Einkünfte und trägt zur Entwicklung dieser Häfen bei. Das Abkommen gewährleistet auch zusätzliche Unterstützung bei der Entwicklung des Küstengebiets durch die folgenden finanzpolitischen Maßnahmen: Laut Abkommen werden mindestens 4,75 Millionen Euro jährlich für die Modernisierung und Nachrüstung der Küstenfischereiflotte bereitgestellt. Darüber hinaus ist im Abkommen festgelegt, dass ein Teil des Finanzbeitrags unter anderem zur Restrukturierung kleiner Fischereiunternehmen, für Ausbildungsbildungszwecke und zur Unterstützung von Berufsorganisationen eingesetzt werden soll. Die industrielle pelagische Fischerei ist verpflichtet, 25 % ihres gesamten Fangs in lokalen Häfen anzulanden. Diese Verpflichtung wurde in das Abkommen aufgenommen, um die Entwicklung der lokalen Fischereiwirtschaft zu unterstützen, die unter unregelmäßiger bzw. unzureichender Versorgung mit Rohmaterial leidet.
Zu den von Frau Fraga Estévez angesprochenen Themen, insbesondere den Kopffüßern und Krustentieren, möchte ich betonen, dass Artikel 4 des Protokolls Anpassungen der Fangmöglichkeiten im Rahmen des Abkommens vorsieht, sollten wissenschaftliche Gutachten eine Verbesserung der Situation bei bestimmten Beständen anzeigen. Anhand der Schlussfolgerungen der jährlichen Treffen des Wissenschaftlichen Ausschusses können beide Parteien eine Abänderung der geltenden Fangmöglichkeiten vereinbaren, solange die nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung der Ressource gewährleistet ist.
Die in dem Abkommen vereinbarten Fangmöglichkeiten beziehen, wie im wissenschaftlichen Gutachten empfohlen, die Gesamtheit der vorhandenen Arten und die Kapazitäten der marokkanischen Landesflotte ein. Die Kommission beabsichtigt nicht, die Diskussion über dieses Thema in anderer Form als im Rahmen der Parameter von Artikel 4 wieder aufzunehmen. Was die Bemerkung zu den Modalitäten betrifft, sind die genannten Modalitäten sicherlich wichtig, doch möchte ich hervorheben, dass dies technische Fragen sind, die durch das Abkommen grundsätzlich nicht geregelt sind.
Technische Modalitäten wie der Einsatz von Lampen, die Anzahl der Haken für Langleiner und das Thema Anlandungen für den industriellen pelagischen Fischfang werden bei der ersten Zusammenkunft des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses nach Inkrafttreten des Abkommens abgestimmt, und wir haben sicherlich kein Problem damit, das Parlament und den Sektor umfassend hierüber zu unterrichten. Informationen über technische Modifikationen könnten während unserer regelmäßigen geschlossenen Sitzungen mitgeteilt werden. Die nächste ist für den 21. Juni geplant, und wenn wir bis dahin schon Kontakt mit den Marokkanern gehabt haben, werden wir den Fischereiausschuss auf jeden Fall über das Ergebnis dieser Kontakte unterrichten.
Frau Fraga Estévez fragte nach, wie weit Marokko mit dem Prozess der Annahme des Abkommens vorangekommen ist. Soweit wir wissen, verläuft alles planmäßig. Uns sind keinerlei Schwierigkeiten auf marokkanischer Seite bekannt. Es kann daher davon ausgegangen werden, dass es vom marokkanischen Parlament unmittelbar nach der Annahme durch uns im Juni verabschiedet wird.
Ich möchte allen danken, die ihre Unterstützung für das erzielte Abkommen zum Ausdruck gebracht haben. Zu der Bemerkung von Frau Corbey hinsichtlich der Ex-ante-Bewertung kann ich mitteilen, dass diese im September dem Vorsitzenden des Fischereiausschusses zugeleitet und allen Mitgliedern des Fischereiausschusses zugänglich gemacht wurde.
Was die von Frau Attwooll und weiteren Abgeordneten zur Sprache gebrachten Punkte anbelangt, möchte ich wiederholen, dass das Abkommen im Hinblick auf die Westsahara sehr sorgfältig formuliert wurde. Wie ich bereits sagte, wird der rechtliche Status der entsprechenden Gewässer weder definiert noch vorweggenommen. Zu den Bemerkungen von Herrn Schlyter, Herrn Hudghton, Herrn Guerreiro und anderen, die sich dazu äußerten, ob Marokko Abkommen über die Nutzung der Naturressourcen der Westsahara abschließen darf, sage ich noch einmal: die Antwort des Rechtsberaters der Vereinten Nationen hierauf ist eindeutig. Obwohl die UN Marokko niemals als Verwaltungsmacht im Sinne von Artikel 73 der Charta der Vereinten Nationen anerkannt haben und Marokko in der Liste der Hoheitsgebiete, deren Völker noch nicht die volle Selbstregierung erreicht haben, nicht als Verwaltungsmacht des Territoriums aufgeführt ist, können mit dem Königreich Marokko Abkommen über die Nutzung von Naturressourcen der Westsahara abgeschlossen werden – nachzulesen in Ziffer 7 des Gutachtens des Rechtsberaters der Vereinten Nationen.
Die Auslegung des Rechtsberaters der UN erkennt die Zuständigkeit Marokkos für den Abschluss derartiger Abkommen an und impliziert damit, dass Marokko de facto Verwaltungsmacht des Territoriums der Westsahara ist; der Rat erteilte der Kommission das Mandat, mit dem Königreich Marokko zu verhandeln.
Im Rahmen dieser Abkommen soll das Recht von Völkern und Nationen, die Naturreichtümer ihres Hoheitsgebietes zu nutzen und über diese zu verfügen, völkerrechtlich zugesichert werden. Insofern gelten die Abkommen als mit der Verpflichtung der Verwaltungsmacht gemäß der Charta vereinbar und als in Übereinstimmung mit der Resolution der Generalversammlung und dem darin verankerten Prinzip der dauerhaften Souveränität über Naturressourcen, wenn die Nutzung der Ressourcen in Hoheitsgebieten, die noch nicht die volle Selbstregierung erreicht haben, der Bevölkerung dieser Gebiete zum Vorteil gereicht, in deren Namen oder in Absprache mit deren Vertretern erfolgt. Von daher steht Marokko in der Pflicht, alle geeigneten Maßnahmen zu treffen, um die volle Anwendung des partnerschaftlichen Fischereiabkommens zwischen der EG und Marokko gemäß den völkerrechtlichen Verpflichtungen zu gewährleisten."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, καταρχάς θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τον κ. Varela Suanzes-Carpegna για τις εισαγωγικές παρατηρήσεις του. Κατανοώ πλήρως τα ζητήματα που έθιξε σχετικά με την παρακολούθηση και δεν θα είχα καμία δυσκολία να διατηρώ την Επιτροπή Αλιείας ενήμερη για το πώς εφαρμόζεται η συμφωνία στην πράξη. Συμμερίζομαι πλήρως την ανησυχία ότι το Κοινοβούλιο πρέπει να είναι ενήμερο για τις ποικίλες πτυχές της εφαρμογής του πρωτοκόλλου. Θα ήθελα να τονίσω ότι η Επιτροπή συμμορφώνεται ήδη με τις απαιτήσεις σχετικά με τη διαβίβαση πληροφοριών, σύμφωνα με τις τρέχουσες θεσμικές ρυθμίσεις. Βρισκόμαστε, επίσης, σε συνεχή διάλογο με τον πρόεδρο και τα μέλη της Επιτροπής Αλιείας, προκειμένου να προσπαθήσουμε να βελτιώσουμε την υφιστάμενη ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών και τον διάλογο, ιδιαίτερα όσον αφορά τη σύναψη και την εκ των υστέρων παρακολούθηση της σύναψης αλιευτικών συμφωνιών.
Σε απάντηση των ανησυχιών της κ. Sudre και του κ. Kristensen, αναφέρω ότι η ίδια η συμφωνία εγγυάται ορισμένα οφέλη για τον τοπικό πληθυσμό. Ειδικότερα όσον αφορά τη βιομηχανική πελαγική αλιεία, η οποία επικεντρώνεται στο απόθεμα Γ, η συμφωνία προβλέπει την υποχρέωση εκφόρτωσης του 25% των αλιευμάτων. Ο βασικός στόχος αυτής της διάταξης είναι να συμβάλει στη βελτίωση των προμηθειών πελαγικών ιχθύων στη μεταποιητική βιομηχανία που τα τελευταία χρόνια πλήττεται από ασταθείς και ελλιπείς προμήθειες πρώτων υλών. Επομένως, προβλέπονται πρόσθετα οικονομικά κίνητρα για να ενθαρρύνουν τα πελαγικά σκάφη να εκφορτώνουν μεγαλύτερο μέρος των αλιευμάτων τους, άνω του υποχρεωτικού 25%, στα τοπικά λιμάνια του Νότου.
Εκτός από την προαναφερόμενη υποχρέωση εκφόρτωσης, η συμφωνία περιλαμβάνει επίσης διατάξεις σχετικά με υπηρεσίες και δραστηριότητες υποδομής στα τοπικά λιμάνια του Νότου. Το γεγονός αυτό συνεπάγεται πρόσθετα εισοδήματα και συμβάλλει στην ανάπτυξη των εν λόγω λιμανιών. Η συμφωνία εξασφαλίζει επίσης πρόσθετη υποστήριξη για την ανάπτυξη της παράκτιας περιοχής, μέσω των ακόλουθων χρηματοδοτικών μέτρων. Η συμφωνία προβλέπει τουλάχιστον 4,75 εκατ. ευρώ ετησίως για τον εκσυγχρονισμό και την αναβάθμιση του παράκτιου στόλου. Στη συμφωνία διευκρινίζεται επίσης ότι μέρος της χρηματοδοτικής συνεισφοράς θα πρέπει να χρησιμοποιηθεί, μεταξύ άλλων, για την αναδιάρθρωση της αλιείας μικρής κλίμακας, την κατάρτιση και την υποστήριξη των επαγγελματικών οργανώσεων. Η βιομηχανική πελαγική αλιεία είναι υποχρεωμένη να εκφορτώνει το 25% όλων των αλιευμάτων στα τοπικά λιμάνια. Η υποχρέωση αυτή εισήχθη στη συμφωνία για την υποστήριξη της ανάπτυξης της τοπικής αλιευτικής βιομηχανίας, η οποία πλήττεται από ασταθή ή ανεπαρκή εφοδιασμό σε πρώτες ύλες.
Όσον αφορά τα ζητήματα που έθιξε η κ. Fraga Estévez, ιδιαίτερα όσον αφορά τα κεφαλόποδα και τα μαλακόστρακα, θα ήθελα να υπογραμμίσω ότι το άρθρο 4 του πρωτοκόλλου προβλέπει την αναθεώρηση των αλιευτικών δυνατοτήτων δυνάμει της συμφωνίας, εάν οι επιστημονικές εκθέσεις διαπιστώσουν βελτίωση της κατάστασης ορισμένων αποθεμάτων. Βάσει των συμπερασμάτων των ετήσιων συνεδριάσεων της Επιστημονικής Επιτροπής, τα δύο μέρη μπορούν να συμφωνήσουν από κοινού στην τροποποίηση των υφισταμένων αλιευτικών δυνατοτήτων, εφόσον εξασφαλίζεται βιώσιμη διαχείριση των αλιευτικών πόρων.
Οι αλιευτικές δυνατότητες που καθορίζονται στη συμφωνία αντικατοπτρίζουν τη συνολική ποσότητα διαθέσιμων ειδών, όπως συνιστά η επιστημονική έκθεση, και τις δυνατότητες του μαροκινού εθνικού στόλου. Η Επιτροπή δεν σκοπεύει να ανοίξει εκ νέου τον διάλογο επί του θέματος αυτού, εκτός στο πλαίσιο των παραμέτρων του άρθρου 4. Επίσης, όσον αφορά το ζήτημα που τέθηκε σχετικά με τις λεπτομέρειες, οι αναφερόμενες λεπτομέρειες είναι ασφαλώς σημαντικές, αλλά επιτρέψτε μου να επισημάνω ότι πρόκειται για τεχνικά θέματα που λόγω της φύσης τους δεν ορίζονται στη συμφωνία.
Τεχνικές λεπτομέρειες, όπως η αλιεία με πυροφάνι, ο αριθμός αγκιστριών στο παραγάδι και το θέμα της εκφόρτωσης στη βιομηχανική πελαγική αλιεία, θα ρυθμιστούν λεπτομερώς κατά την πρώτη συνεδρίαση της Μικτής Επιτροπής, η οποία θα συγκληθεί μετά τη θέση της συμφωνίας σε ισχύ, και ασφαλώς δεν θα παραλείψουμε να κρατούμε πλήρως ενήμερο το Κοινοβούλιο και τον τομέα. Πληροφορίες σχετικά με τεχνικές τροποποιήσεις μπορούν να παρασχεθούν κατά τη διάρκεια των τακτικών εν συμβουλίω συνεδριάσεών μας. Η επόμενη προβλέπεται για τις 21 Ιουνίου και αν, μέχρι τότε, έχουμε ήδη έρθει σε επαφή με τους Μαροκινούς, θα ενημερώσουμε ασφαλώς την Επιτροπή Αλιείας για την έκβαση των εν λόγω επαφών.
Ερωτήθηκα από την κ. Fraga Estévez πόσο έχει προχωρήσει το Μαρόκο όσον αφορά την ολοκλήρωση της διαδικασίας έγκρισης της συμφωνίας. Οι πληροφορίες μας λένε ότι όλα βαίνουν ομαλά. Δεν γνωρίζουμε να υπάρχουν ιδιαίτερες δυσκολίες από τη μαροκινή πλευρά. Επομένως, θα πρέπει να εγκριθεί από το μαροκινό κοινοβούλιο αμέσως μόλις εγκριθεί από εμάς εντός του Ιουνίου.
Θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω όλους όσους στήριξαν την επιτευχθείσα συμφωνία. Όσον αφορά το θέμα που έθιξε η κ. Corbey σχετικά με την εκ των προτέρων αξιολόγηση, επιτρέψτε μου να πω ότι εστάλη τον Σεπτέμβριο στον πρόεδρο της Επιτροπής Αλιείας και διανεμήθηκε σε όλα τα μέλη της Επιτροπής Αλιείας.
Όσον αφορά τα σημεία που έθιξε η κ. Attwooll και ορισμένοι άλλοι, επαναλαμβάνω ότι όσον αφορά τη Δυτική Σαχάρα, η διατύπωση που χρησιμοποιείται στη συμφωνία έχει επιλεγεί πολύ προσεκτικά. Επαναλαμβάνω ότι ούτε ορίζει ούτε προδικάζει το νομικό καθεστώς των εν λόγω υδάτων. Και πάλι, όσον αφορά τα όσα δήλωσαν ο κ. Schlyter, ο κ. Hudghton, ο κ. Guerreiro και άλλοι σχετικά με το αν το Μαρόκο μπορεί να συνάπτει συμφωνίες που αφορούν την εκμετάλλευση των φυσικών πόρων της Δυτικής Σαχάρας, η απάντηση του νομικού συμβούλου του ΟΗΕ είναι σαφής. Παρόλο που τα Ηνωμένα Έθνη δεν αναγνώρισαν ποτέ το Μαρόκο ως διοικητική αρχή, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 73 του Χάρτη των Ηνωμένων Εθνών και το Μαρόκο δεν εμφανίζεται ως διοικητική αρχή του εδάφους στον κατάλογο των μη αυτοκυβερνώμενων εδαφών του ΟΗΕ –αυτό είναι το σημείο 7 της γνωμοδότησης του νομικού συμβούλου του ΟΗΕ– είναι δυνατή η σύναψη συμφωνιών με το Βασίλειο του Μαρόκου σχετικά με την εκμετάλλευση των φυσικών πόρων της Δυτικής Σαχάρας.
Η ερμηνεία που παρέχεται από τον νομικό σύμβουλο του ΟΗΕ αναγνωρίζει την αρμοδιότητα του Μαρόκου να συνάπτει τέτοιου είδους συμφωνίες και, με αυτόν τον τρόπο, υποδηλώνει ότι το Μαρόκο αποτελεί εκ των πραγμάτων διοικητική αρχή του εδάφους της Δυτικής Σαχάρας· η εντολή του Συμβουλίου προς την Επιτροπή ήταν να διεξαχθούν διαπραγματεύσεις με το Βασίλειο του Μαρόκου.
Στο πλαίσιο αυτών των συμφωνιών, το διεθνές δίκαιο αποσκοπεί στη διασφάλιση του δικαιώματος των λαών και των εθνών να χρησιμοποιούν και να διαθέτουν τους φυσικούς πόρους των εδαφών τους. Από αυτήν την άποψη, οι συμφωνίες θεωρούνται συμβατές με την υποχρέωση της διοικητικής αρχής σύμφωνα με τον Χάρτη και σύμφωνες με το ψήφισμα της Γενικής Συνέλευσης και την αρχή της μόνιμης κυριαρχίας των φυσικών πόρων που διατυπώνεται σε αυτό, εάν η εκμετάλλευση των πόρων σε μη αυτοκυβερνώμενα εδάφη θεωρείται προς όφελος των λαών των εν λόγω εδαφών, εξ ονόματός τους ή μετά από διαβουλεύσεις με τους εκπροσώπους τους. Από αυτήν την άποψη, το Μαρόκο οφείλει να λάβει όλα τα απαραίτητα μέτρα, προκειμένου να διασφαλίσει την πλήρη εφαρμογή της συμφωνίας αλιευτικής σύμπραξης μεταξύ της ΕΕ και του Μαρόκου, σύμφωνα με τις επιταγές του διεθνούς δικαίου."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, antes que nada quisiera agradecer al señor Varela Suanzes-Carpegna sus comentarios iniciales. Comprendo perfectamente las cuestiones planteadas con respecto al control y no tengo ningún problema en mantener informada a la Comisión de Pesca sobre el modo en que se aplica realmente el acuerdo. Comparto también que es necesario mantener informado al Parlamento sobre los diversos aspectos de la aplicación del protocolo. Quisiera destacar que la Comisión ya cumple las exigencias de transmisión de información, de acuerdo con los acuerdos institucionales vigentes. También existen continuos debates con el presidente y los miembros de la Comisión de Pesca a fin de intentar mejorar el diálogo y el actual intercambio de información, sobre todo con respecto a la conclusión y posterior seguimiento de los acuerdos de pesca.
En respuesta a la preocupación expresada por la señora Sudre y el señor Kristensen, diré que el acuerdo mismo ya supone ciertos beneficios para la población local. En concreto, con respecto a la pesca pelágica industrial, que se centra en la población C, el acuerdo prevé la obligación de desembarcar el 25 % de las capturas. El propósito principal de esta disposición es contribuir al suministro de pescado pelágico para la industria transformadora, que en los últimos años ha padecido la parquedad e irregularidad del suministro de materias primas. Por ese motivo se han previsto incentivos económicos adicionales para animar a los barcos a desembarcar una proporción mayor de sus capturas, por encima del 25 % obligatorio, en los puertos locales del sur.
Además de la mencionada obligación de desembarque, el acuerdo también contiene normas acerca de los servicios y las actividades de infraestructura en los puertos locales del sur. Con ello se favorece la obtención de ingresos adicionales para esos puertos y se contribuye a su desarrollo. El acuerdo garantiza también un mayor apoyo al desarrollo de las zonas litorales gracias a las siguientes medidas financieras: se establece un importe mínimo de 4,75 millones de euros anuales para la modernización y puesta al día de la flota litoral; se especifica que parte de la contribución financiera debe emplearse, entre otros fines, para la reestructuración de la pesca artesanal, la formación y el apoyo a las organizaciones profesionales. La pesca pelágica industrial está obligada a desembarcar en los puertos locales el 25 % de las capturas, condición introducida en el acuerdo para favorecer el desarrollo de la industria pesquera local, que padece unos suministros irregulares e insuficientes de materia prima.
En cuanto a las cuestiones planteadas por la señora Fraga Estévez, sobre todo en lo relativo a los cefalópodos y crustáceos, quiero subrayar que el artículo 4 del protocolo prevé la revisión de las posibilidades de pesca contempladas en el acuerdo si los informes científicos reflejan una mejora en la situación de determinadas poblaciones. Basándonos en las conclusiones de las reuniones anuales del Comité Científico, ambas partes acordar la modificación de las actuales posibilidades de pesca siempre que se asegure una gestión sostenible de los recursos.
Las posibilidades de pesca establecidas en el acuerdo reflejan todo el espectro de especies disponibles, tal como recomienda el informe científico, así como la capacidad de la flota nacional marroquí. La Comisión no pretende reabrir el debate sobre este tema, salvo dentro de los parámetros del artículo 4. Asimismo, con respecto al tema relativo a las modalidades, las que se han aludido son sin duda importantes, pero quiero recordar que estas son cuestiones técnicas que, por su propia naturaleza, no se definen en el acuerdo.
Ciertas modalidades técnicas como la pesca con luz, el número de anzuelos para palangreros y el asunto de los desembarques para la pesca pelágica industrial serán objeto de ajustes durante la primera reunión del Comité Conjunto que se celebrará tras la entrada en vigor del acuerdo, y no hay problema alguno por nuestra parte en mantener totalmente informados al Parlamento y al sector. La información sobre los cambios técnicos podría facilitarse durante nuestras sesiones periódicas a puerta cerrada. La primera de ellas está prevista para el 21 de junio y, si para entonces ya ha habido contacto con los marroquíes, informaremos del resultado de esos contactos a la Comisión de Pesca.
La señora Fraga Estévez me ha preguntado hasta dónde ha llegado Marruecos en el proceso de aprobación del acuerdo. Según la información de que disponemos, todo marcha sin contratiempos. No tenemos noticia de ninguna dificultad particular por parte de Marruecos. Por lo tanto, el acuerdo debería ser aprobado por el Parlamento marroquí inmediatamente después de nosotros, a lo largo del mes de junio.
Quisiera dar las gracias a todos los que han expresado su apoyo al acuerdo alcanzado. Con respecto a la cuestión planteada por la señora Corbey sobre la evaluación
quiero aclarar que esta se remitió en septiembre al presidente de la Comisión de Pesca y se distribuyó entre todos los miembros de la misma.
En cuanto las cuestiones planteadas por la señora Attwooll y algunos otros, repito que, en cuanto al Sáhara Occidental, el texto del acuerdo ha sido redactado con sumo cuidado. Reitero que ni define ni prejuzga el estatuto jurídico de las aguas afectadas. Una vez más, respecto a lo que han dicho el señor Schlyter, el señor Hudghton y el señor Guerreiro, entre otros, acerca de si Marruecos puede formalizar acuerdos que afecten a la explotación de los recursos naturales del Sáhara Occidental, los asesores jurídicos de las Naciones Unidas han dado una respuesta muy clara: aunque las Naciones Unidas nunca ha reconocido a Marruecos como potencia administradora con arreglo al artículo 73 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y Marruecos no está incluido como potencia administradora del territorio en la lista de las Naciones Unidas de territorios no autónomos (este es el punto 7 del dictamen del asesor jurídico de la ONU), sí es posible firmar acuerdos con el Reino de Marruecos relativos a la explotación de los recursos naturales del Sáhara Occidental.
La interpretación del asesor jurídico de las Naciones Unidas reconoce la competencia de Marruecos para firmar tales acuerdos, lo que implica que Marruecos es, de hecho, una potencia administradora del territorio del Sáhara Occidental. En consecuencia, el mandato del Consejo a la Comisión fue de negociar con el Reino de Marruecos.
En el marco de esos acuerdos, el Derecho internacional pretende asegurar el derecho de los pueblos y las naciones a utilizar y disponer de los recursos naturales de sus territorios. A ese respecto, los acuerdos se consideran compatibles con las obligaciones como potencia administradora que prevé la Carta y conformes con la resolución de la Asamblea General y con el principio de soberanía permanente sobre los recursos naturales que aquélla consagra, siempre que la explotación de los recursos de los territorios no autónomos se gestione en beneficio de sus habitantes, en su nombre o previa consulta a sus representantes. En ese sentido, Marruecos está obligado a tomar todas las medidas conducentes a asegurar la plena aplicación del Acuerdo de Cooperación Pesquera entre la CE y Marruecos y con arreglo a las obligaciones derivadas del Derecho internacional."@es20
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, haluan aluksi kiittää jäsen Varela Suanzes-Carpegnaa hänen alustavista huomautuksistaan. Ymmärrän täysin valvontaa koskevat huomiot ja voin aivan hyvin pitää kalatalousvaliokunnan ajan tasalla siitä, miten sopimusta sovelletaan käytännössä. Olen täysin samaa mieltä siitä, että parlamentin olisi saatava tieto pöytäkirjan täytäntöönpanon eri näkökohdista. Haluaisin korostaa, että komissio noudattaa tälläkin hetkellä tiedottamista koskevia vaatimuksia nykyisten toimielinjärjestelyjen mukaisesti. Olemme myös jatkaneet keskusteluja kalatalousvaliokunnan puheenjohtajan ja jäsenten kanssa kehittääksemme nykyistä tiedonvaihtoa ja vuoropuhelua erityisesti kalastussopimusten tekemisen ja niiden seurannan yhteydessä.
Haluan vastata jäsenten Sudren ja Kristensenin ilmaisemiin huolenaiheisiin toteamalla, että sopimus itsessään takaa jo joitain etuja paikalliselle väestölle. Näin on erityisesti kantaan C keskittyvän teollisen pelagisen kalastuksen kohdalla, velvoitetaanhan sopimuksessa purkamaan 25 prosenttia saaliista paikallisissa satamissa. Tämän määräyksen päätarkoitus on parantaa avomeren kalan toimittamista jalostusteollisuuden käyttöön. Se on viime vuosina kärsinyt epäsäännöllisistä ja puutteellisista raaka-ainetoimituksista. Pelagisia aluksia kannustetaan sen vuoksi taloudellisin lisäkannustimin purkamaan suurempi osa eli enemmän kuin pakolliset 25 prosenttia saaliistaan etelän paikallisissa satamissa.
Äsken mainitsemani purkamisvelvoitteen lisäksi sopimuksessa on myös etelän paikallisten satamien palveluja ja infrastruktuuritoimintoja koskevia määräyksiä. Niiden tarkoitus on mahdollistaa lisätuotot ja edistää näiden satamien kehitystä. Sopimuksella varmistetaan myös lisätuki rannikkoalueen kehittämiselle seuraavien taloudellisten toimenpiteiden avulla. Sopimuksessa määrätään myönnettäväksi vähintään 4,75 miljoonaa euroa vuodessa rannikkolaivaston nykyaikaistamiseen ja saattamiseen ajan tasalle. Siinä tarkennetaan myös, että osa taloudellisesta korvauksesta on käytettävä muun muassa rakenneuudistuksiin pienimuotoisen kalastuksen alalla sekä koulutukseen ja tukeen ammattijärjestöille. Teollisen pelagisen kalastuksen alukset ovat velvollisia purkamaan 25 prosenttia saaliistaan paikallisissa satamissa. Tämä velvoite on lisätty sopimukseen tukemaan paikallisen kalatalousalan kehitystä, joka kärsii epäsäännöllisistä ja puutteellisista raaka-ainetoimituksista.
Jäsen Fraga Estévezin esittämistä kysymyksistä vastaan erityisesti pääjalkaisia ja äyriäisiä koskevaan. Haluaisin korostaa, että pöytäkirjan 4 artikla mahdollistaa sopimuksessa tarkoitettujen kalastusmahdollisuuksien tarkistamisen, jos tieteellisissä lausunnoissa osoitetaan tiettyjen kantojen tilan kohentuneen. Tieteellisen komitean vuosittaisten kokousten päätelmien perusteella sopimuspuolet voivat yhteisesti sopia voimassa olevien kalastusmahdollisuuksien muuttamisesta, kunhan kalavarojen kestävä hoito varmistetaan.
Sopimukseen kirjatuissa kalastusmahdollisuuksissa on tieteellisen komitean suosituksen mukaan otettu huomioon kaikkien kalastettavien lajien kokonaismäärä sekä Marokon kansallisen laivaston kapasiteetti. Komissio ei aio enää keskustella tästä aiheesta lukuun ottamatta 4 artiklan sisältöä. Yksityiskohtaiset säännöt, joihin viitattiin, ovat varmasti tärkeitä, mutta haluan korostaa, että nämä ovat teknisiä kysymyksiä, eikä niistä sen vuoksi sovita sopimuksessa.
Teknisiä kysymyksiä, kuten valonheitinten käyttäminen, siima-alusten koukkujen lukumäärä ja kysymys teollisen pelagisen kalastuksen saaliiden purkamisesta, käsitellään tarkemmin ensimmäisessä sekakomitean kokouksessa, joka pidetään sopimuksen voimaantulon jälkeen. Meillä ei varmastikaan ole mitään ongelmia parlamentin ja alan toimijoiden pitämisessä ajan tasalla. Tiedot teknisistä muutoksista voidaan välittää suljetuin ovin pidettävien säännöllisten kokoustemme yhteydessä. Seuraava kokous pidetään 21. kesäkuuta, ja jos olemme siihen mennessä jo olleet yhteydessä Marokkoon, ilmoitamme varmasti tämän yhteydenpidon tuloksista kalatalousvaliokunnalle.
Jäsen Fraga Estévez kysyi minulta, miten pitkällä Marokossa ollaan sopimuksen hyväksymisprosessissa. Tietojemme mukaan asia etenee tasaiseen tahtiin. Emme ole kuulleet mistään erityisistä ongelmista Marokon puolelta. Marokon parlamentti hyväksynee sopimuksen sen vuoksi oletettavasti heti, kun me olemme sen hyväksyneet kesäkuussa.
Kiitän kaikkia, jotka ovat ilmaisseet tukevansa saavutettua sopimusta. Jäsen Corbeyn mainitsemasta ennakkoarvioinnista haluan sanoa, että se lähetettiin syyskuussa kalatalousvaliokunnan puheenjohtajalle ja jaettiin kaikille sen jäsenille.
Jäsen Attwooll ja muutamat muut puhuivat Länsi-Saharaan liittyvistä asioista. Toistan, että sopimuksen sanamuoto muotoiltiin näiltä osin hyvin huolellisesti. Toistan myös, että sopimuksessa ei määritellä kyseisten vesialueiden oikeudellista asemaa eikä oteta siihen kantaa. YK:n alainen kansainvälinen tuomioistuin antaa selkeän vastauksen jäsenten Schlyterin, Hudghtonin ja Guerreiron ja muiden esittämään kysymykseen siitä, voiko Marokko tehdä Länsi-Saharan luonnonvarojen käyttöä koskevia sopimuksia. YK ei ole koskaan tunnustanut Marokolla olevan YK:n peruskirjan 73 artiklan mukaista hallintovaltaa Länsi-Saharassa. Marokkoa ei myöskään ole merkitty kyseisen alueen hallintovallaksi YK:n itsehallintoa vailla olevien alueiden listalla. Kansainvälisen tuomioistuimen lausunnon 7 kohdan mukaan Marokon kuningaskunnan kanssa voidaan kuitenkin tehdä Länsi-Saharan luonnonvarojen käyttöä koskevia sopimuksia.
Kansainvälisen tuomioistuimen tulkinnan mukaan Marokolla on toimivalta tehdä tällainen sopimus ja se antaa täten ymmärtää, että Marokolla on Länsi-Saharan alueen tosiasiallinen hallintovalta. Neuvostohan antoi komissiolle valtuudet neuvotella Marokon kuningaskunnan kanssa.
Kansainvälisellä oikeudella pyritään tällaisissa sopimuksissa takaamaan kansoille ja kansakunnille oikeudet käyttää alueidensa luonnonvaroja ja hallita niitä. Siinä mielessä sopimukset eivät ole ristiriidassa YK:n peruskirjan hallintovaltavaatimuksen kanssa, ja ne ovat YK:n yleiskokouksen päätöslauselman ja siihen sisältyvän luonnonvaroja koskevan pysyvän itsemääräämisoikeuden periaatteen mukaisia, jos itsehallintoa vailla olevien alueiden luonnonvarat käytetään näiden alueiden väestön hyväksi, heidän nimissään tai neuvotellen heidän edustajiensa kanssa. Marokon velvollisuus tämän suhteen on toteuttaa kaikki tarpeelliset toimenpiteet varmistaakseen, että EY:n ja Marokon kalastuskumppanuussopimusta sovelletaan kansainvälisestä oikeudesta johtuvien velvoitteiden mukaisesti."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, avant tout, je tiens à remercier M. Varela Suanzes-Carpegna pour ses remarques préliminaires. Je comprends parfaitement les questions concernant la supervision, et je n’ai aucune difficulté à tenir la commission de la pêche informée de la manière dont l’accord est effectivement mis en œuvre. Je partage entièrement la préoccupation consistant à tenir le Parlement au courant des différents aspects de la mise en œuvre du protocole. Je voudrais souligner que la Commission respecte d’ores et déjà les exigences en matière de transmission des informations, conformément aux actuels accords institutionnels. Nous avons également des discussions continues avec le président et les membres de la commission de la pêche, afin de tenter d’améliorer les échanges d’informations et le dialogue existants, notamment en ce qui concerne la conclusion et le suivi a posteriori de la conclusion des accords de pêche.
Permettez-moi d’ajouter, en réponse aux préoccupations de Mme Sudre et de M. Kristensen, que l’accord lui-même garantit déjà certains avantages pour la population locale. Notamment, d’ailleurs, en ce qui concerne la pêche pélagique industrielle, qui se concentre sur le stock C, l’accord prévoit l’obligation de débarquer 25% des prises. Le principal objectif de cette disposition est de contribuer à un meilleur approvisionnement en poissons pélagiques pour l’industrie de transformation, qui a souffert ces dernières années d’approvisionnements irréguliers et de pénuries de matières premières. Des incitations économiques supplémentaires sont par conséquent prévues afin d’encourager les navires pélagiques à débarquer une part plus importante de leurs prises, c’est-à-dire davantage que les 25% obligatoires, dans les ports locaux du Sud.
Outre l’obligation de débarquement susmentionnée, l’accord contient également des stipulations concernant les services et les activités relatives à l’infrastructure dans les ports locaux du Sud. Cela permet des gains supplémentaires et contribue au développement de ces ports. L’accord garantit également un soutien complémentaire au développement de la zone côtière, au moyen des mesures financières suivantes. L’accord fixe un montant égal à au moins 4,75 millions d’euros par an pour la modernisation et la mise à niveau de la flotte côtière. L’accord spécifie également qu’une partie de la contribution financière devrait être utilisée, entre autres, pour la restructuration de la pêche artisanale, la formation et le soutien des organisations professionnelles. La pêche pélagique industrielle est tenue de débarquer 25% du total des prises dans les ports locaux. Cette obligation a été insérée dans l’accord afin de soutenir le développement de l’industrie locale de la pêche, qui souffre d’un approvisionnement irrégulier ou insuffisant en matières premières.
Concernant les points évoqués par Mme Fraga Estévez, notamment en ce qui concerne les céphalopodes et les crustacés, je tiens à souligner que l’article 4 du protocole prévoit le réexamen des possibilités de pêche au titre de l’accord si les rapports scientifiques indiquent une amélioration de la situation de certains stocks. Sur la base des conclusions des réunions annuelles du comité scientifique, les deux parties peuvent se mettre d’accord pour modifier les possibilités de pêche existantes, tant qu’une gestion durable des ressources est assurée.
Les possibilités de pêche fixées dans l’accord reflètent le volume total d’espèces disponibles, tel que recommandé par le rapport scientifique, ainsi que les capacités de la flotte nationale marocaine. La Commission n’a pas l’intention de rouvrir la discussion sur ce thème, sauf dans le cadre des paramètres définis à l’article 4. De même, en ce qui concerne la question des modalités, les modalités évoquées sont assurément importantes, mais permettez-moi de souligner qu’il s’agit de questions techniques qui, de par leur nature, ne sont pas définies dans l’accord.
Les modalités techniques telles que l’utilisation du lamparo, le nombre de crochets pour les palangriers et la question des débarquements pour la pêche pélagique industrielle seront affinées lors de la première réunion de la commission mixte qui sera convoquée après l’entrée en vigueur de l’accord, et nous n’aurons certainement aucun problème à tenir le Parlement et le secteur parfaitement informés. Des informations pourraient être communiquées sur les modifications techniques à l’occasion de nos réunions régulières à huis clos. La prochaine est prévue pour le 21 juin et si, d’ici là, nous avons déjà des contacts avec les Marocains, nous rendrons certainement compte à la commission de la pêche du résultat de ces contacts.
Mme Fraga Estévez m’a demandé dans quelle mesure le Maroc avait avancé en ce qui concerne la conclusion du processus d’adoption de l’accord. D’après nos informations, ce processus se déroule sans encombre. Nous n’avons pas connaissance de difficultés particulières du côté marocain. L’accord devrait donc être adopté par le Parlement marocain dès que nous l’aurons nous-mêmes adopté dans le courant du mois de juin.
Je tiens à remercier tous ceux qui ont exprimé leur soutien à l’accord auquel nous sommes parvenus. En ce qui concerne le point évoqué par Mme Corbey concernant l’évaluation
permettez-moi de dire que celle-ci a été envoyée en septembre au président de la commission de la pêche et distribuée à tous les membres de la commission de la pêche.
En ce qui concerne les points évoqués par Mme Attwooll et un certain nombre d’autres orateurs, je répète que, s’agissant du Sahara occidental, la formulation utilisée dans l’accord a été choisie avec beaucoup de précautions. Je répète que cette formulation ne définit pas le statut juridique des eaux concernées, pas plus qu’elle ne préjuge de ce statut. Une nouvelle fois, s’agissant de ce que M. Schlyter, M. Hudghton, M. Guerreiro et d’autres encore ont déclaré quant à la question de savoir si le Maroc pouvait conclure des accords concernant l’exploitation des ressources naturelles du Sahara occidental, le conseiller juridique des Nations unies donne une réponse claire. Même si les Nations unies n’ont jamais reconnu le Maroc comme puissance administrative conformément à l’article 73 de la Charte des Nations unies, et si le Maroc n’est pas inscrit parmi les puissances administratives du territoire dans la liste des Nations unies des territoires non autonomes - ce qui constitue le point 7 de l’avis du conseiller juridique des Nations unies -, des accords peuvent être conclus avec le Royaume du Maroc concernant l’exploitation des ressources naturelles du Sahara occidental.
L’interprétation donnée par le conseiller juridique des Nations unies reconnaît la compétence du Maroc à conclure ce type d’accord, ce qui implique que le Maroc est une puissance administrative de facto sur le territoire du Sahara occidental; le mandat conféré à la Commission par le Conseil consistait à négocier avec le Royaume du Maroc.
Dans le cadre de ces accords, le droit international s’efforce de garantir le droit des peuples et des nations à faire usage et à disposer des ressources naturelles situées sur leur territoire. À cet égard, les accords sont considérés comme compatibles avec l’obligation, contenue dans la Charte, incombant à la puissance administrative, et comme conformes à la résolution de l’Assemblée générale et au principe de souveraineté permanente des ressources naturelles inscrites dans cette résolution, si l’exploitation des ressources dans les territoires non autonomes est envisagée pour le profit des peuples de ces territoires, en leur nom ou en consultation avec leurs représentants. À cet égard, le Maroc est tenu de prendre toutes les mesures appropriées pour garantir l’application pleine et entière de l’accord de partenariat entre la Communauté européenne et le Maroc dans le secteur de la pêche conformément aux obligations du droit international."@fr8
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@hu11
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@lt14
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@lv13
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil om te beginnen de heer Varela Suanzes-Carpegna bedanken voor zijn inleidende opmerkingen. Ik begrijp heel goed wat hier gezegd is over de uitoefening van controle en ik vind het geen enkel probleem om de Visserijcommissie op de hoogte te houden van de wijze waarop de overeenkomst ten uitvoer wordt gelegd. Ik begrijp dat ook het Parlement geïnformeerd wenst te blijven over de verschillende aspecten van de tenuitvoerlegging van het protocol. Men zij erop gewezen dat de Europese Commissie nu reeds voldoet aan de vereisten voor de uitwisseling van informatie zoals die onlangs in interinstitutionele regelingen zijn vastgelegd. We blijven contact onderhouden met de voorzitter en de leden van de Visserijcommissie om de kwaliteit van de dialoog en de uitwisseling van informatie te verbeteren, zeker als het gaat om het afsluiten van visserijovereenkomsten en de follow-up bij die overeenkomsten.
Op de vragen van mevrouw Sudre en de heer Kristensen kan ik antwoorden dat in de overeenkomst zelf is vastgelegd dat de plaatselijke bevolking bepaalde voordelen moet genieten. Dat gebeurt vooral in de context van de industriële pelagische visserij. Die houdt zich vooral bezig met de vangst van de onder C genoemde soorten. Volgens de overeenkomst moet 25 procent van de vangst aan land worden gebracht. Met deze bepaling beogen we bij te dragen tot een regelmatiger aanvoer van pelagische vis voor de verwerkende industrie. Die heeft de laatste jaren veel schade ondervonden van de onregelmatige of te kort schietende aanvoer van grondstoffen. Er wordt gedacht aan economische prikkels om de pelagische vissers te bewegen een groter deel dan de voorgeschreven 25 procent van hun vangst in plaatselijke havens in het zuiden aan land te brengen.
Behalve deze verplichting om een deel van de vangst aan land te brengen bevat de overeenkomst ook bepalingen met betrekking tot diensten en activiteiten op het gebied van de infrastructuur in die plaatselijke havens. Dat levert extra inkomen op, terwijl zo ook een bijdrage wordt geleverd aan de ontwikkeling van deze havens. De overeenkomst geeft ook aanvullende steun voor de ontwikkeling van de kustgebieden, en wel via de volgende financiële maatregelen. In de overeenkomst wordt een bedrag van tenminste 4,75 miljoen euro per jaar gereserveerd voor het moderniseren en up-to-date brengen van de kustvloot. Verder wordt bepaald dat een deel van de financiële bijdrage gebruikt moet worden voor – onder andere – de herstructurering van de kleinschalige visserij, opleidingen en steun aan de beroepsorganisaties. De industriële pelagische vissers zijn verplicht 25 procent van hun vangst in plaatselijke havens te lossen. Deze bepaling is in de overeenkomst opgenomen om de ontwikkeling van de plaatselijke visindustrie – die te kampen had met onvoldoende of onregelmatige aanvoer van grondstoffen – te stimuleren.
Met betrekking tot de vragen van mevrouw Fraga Estévez – speciaal de vraag over koppotigen en schaaldieren – wil ik er graag op wijzen dat artikel 4 van het protocol een herziening van de vangstmogelijkheden toelaat als wetenschappelijke rapporten uitwijzen dat de populaties van bepaalde soorten toenemen. Partijen kunnen op basis van de conclusies van het wetenschappelijk comité – dat jaarlijks bijeenkomt – in overleg besluiten de vastgelegde vangstmogelijkheden uit te breiden als dat verenigbaar is met een duurzaam beheer van de hulpbronnen.
De in de overeenkomst vastgelegde vangstmogelijkheden zijn afgestemd op de beschikbare soorten – en daarbij hebben we de aanbevelingen van het wetenschappelijk comité gevolgd – en de capaciteiten van de Marokkaanse nationale vloot. De Commissie is er geen voorstander van om de discussie over dit onderwerp te heropenen, behalve als dat binnen de parameters van artikel 4 gebeurt. Er is gewezen op de modaliteiten. De modaliteiten waarnaar verwezen is zijn zeker belangrijk, maar ik wil er wel graag op wijzen dat dit technische kwesties zijn die uit de aard der zaak niet in de overeenkomst zijn vastgelegd.
Technische modaliteiten zoals het gebruik van lampara’s, het aantal haken dat beugvaartuigen mogen gebruiken en de wijze waarop schepen die industriële pelagische visserij bedrijven hun vangsten aan wal brengen zijn zaken die bij de eerste vergadering van het Gemengd Comité na inwerkingtreding van de overeenkomst zullen worden besproken. Wij zijn gaarne bereid het Parlement en de sector volledig op de hoogte te houden. Informatie over technische modaliteiten kan tijdens de regelmatige gehouden gesloten zittingen worden uitgewisseld. De eerstvolgende zitting is gepland voor 21 juni. Als we tegen die tijd reeds met de Marokkanen contact hebben gehad zullen we visserijcommissie zeker vertellen wat die contacten hebben opgeleverd.
Mevrouw Fraga Estévez heeft mij gevraagd hoe ver Marokko gevorderd was met de procedure voor goedkeuren van de overeenkomst. Volgens de informatie waar wij over beschikken verloopt alles goed. Van specifieke problemen aan Marokkaanse zijde is ons niets bekend. Het Marokkaanse parlement zou de overeenkomst dus onmiddellijk nadat wij haar ergens in juni hebben goedgekeurd kunnen ratificeren.
Ik wil al degenen die zich vóór de bereikte overeenkomst hebben uitgesproken graag bedanken. Met betrekking tot de opmerking van mevrouw Corbey over de beoordeling vooraf kan ik u vertellen dat deze in september naar de voorzitter van de Visserijcommissie is verzonden; alle leden van de commissie hebben er een kopie van ontvangen.
Wat de punten die door mevrouw Attwooll en anderen aan de orde zijn gebracht betreft: de tekstonderdelen die op de Westelijke Sahara betrekking hebben zijn – ik herhaal – heel zorgvuldig geformuleerd. Ik herhaal ook dat in die tekstonderdelen niets gezegd wordt over de juridische status van deze wateren. De heer Schlyter, de heer Hudghton en de heer Guerreiro hebben gezegd dat het maar de vraag was of Marokko wel overeenkomsten kan sluiten die betrekking hebben op de exploitatie van de hulpbronnen van de Westelijke Sahara. De juridische adviseur van de Verenigde Naties heeft daarop een duidelijk antwoord verschaft. De Verenigde Naties hebben Marokko nooit erkend als bestuursbevoegde mogendheid in de zin van artikel 73 van het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties en Marokko wordt ook niet genoemd als bestuursmogendheid van dit gebied op de VN-lijst van gebieden zonder zelfbestuur. Desalniettemin is het mogelijk – en ik verwijs daarbij naar punt 7 van het advies van de juridisch adviseur van de Verenigde Naties – met het Koninkrijk Marokko overeenkomsten af te sluiten over de ontsluiting van de natuurlijke hulpbronnen van de Westelijke Sahara.
De interpretatie van de juridisch adviseur van de VN houdt een erkenning in van de bevoegdheid van Marokko om dit soort overeenkomsten te sluiten. Het komt er dus op neer dat Marokko
het bestuur over de Westelijke Sahara voert. Volgens het mandaat dat de Commissie van de Raad ontvangen heeft moesten we met het Koninkrijk Marokko onderhandelen.
In de context van dit soort overeenkomsten beoogt het internationaal recht naties en volkeren te garanderen dat ze het recht om de natuurlijke hulpbronnen binnen het eigen grondgebied te beschikken ook werkelijk kunnen uitoefenen. Men gaat ervan uit dat deze overeenkomsten verenigbaar zijn met de in het Handvest opgenomen verplichting van de besturende mogendheid en resolutie van de Algemene Vergadering waarin het principe van permanente soevereiniteit met betrekking tot natuurlijke hulpbronnen is vastgelegd, maar alleen indien de exploitatie van de gebieden zonder zelfbestuur geacht wordt ten goede te komen aan de mensen die in deze gebieden wonen, of indien de exploitatie namens hen, dan wel in overleg met hun vertegenwoordigers plaatsvindt. Marokko moet dus al de nodige maatregelen te nemen om ervoor te zorgen dat bij de toepassing van de partnerschapsovereenkomst inzake visserij tussen de Europese Gemeenschap en het Koninkrijk Marokko het internationaal recht wordt nageleefd."@nl3
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, em primeiro lugar, gostaria de agradecer ao senhor deputado Varela Suanzes-Carpegna as suas observações introdutórias. Compreendo perfeitamente as questões levantadas a respeito do acompanhamento e não tenho qualquer problema em ir mantendo a Comissão das Pescas informada sobre a aplicação do acordo. Concordo plenamente com a necessidade de manter o Parlamento a par dos vários aspectos da implementação do protocolo. Gostaria de salientar que a Comissão já cumpre com as exigências em matéria de transmissão de informações, em conformidade com os acordos institucionais em vigor. Também mantemos discussões permanentes com o presidente e os membros da Comissão das Pescas, de modo a tentar melhorar os actuais níveis de diálogo e troca de informações, especialmente no que diz respeito à celebração de acordos de pesca e ao seguimento
da mesma.
Em resposta às preocupações manifestadas pelos senhores deputados Sudre e Kristensen, gostaria de dizer que o acordo, já de si, garante certos benefícios para a população local. Nomeadamente, no que diz respeito à pesca industrial das espécies pelágicas, focalizada na unidade populacional C, o acordo prevê a obrigação de desembarcar 25% do produto capturado. O objectivo principal desta disposição é contribuir para um melhor fornecimento de espécies pelágicas à indústria de transformação de produtos da pesca, que, nos últimos anos, tem vindo a sofrer interrupções e falhas no abastecimento de matéria-prima. Estão previstos, por conseguinte, incentivos económicos suplementares para fazer com que os navios pelágicos desembarquem uma fatia maior das suas capturas - acima dos 25% obrigatórios - nos portos locais do Sul.
Além da obrigação de desembarque acima mencionada, o acordo também estabelece serviços e actividades infra-estruturais nos portos locais da região Sul, proporcionando assim ganhos suplementares e contribuindo para o desenvolvimento destes portos. O acordo também prevê apoio adicional para o desenvolvimento da região costeira, através das medidas financeiras que passo a descrever. O acordo consagra um montante de pelo menos 4,75 milhões de euros por ano à modernização e readaptação da frota costeira; estipula que parte deste contributo financeiro deve ser utilizada na reestruturação da pesca artesanal, em acções de formação e no apoio às organizações profissionais, entre outros objectivos. A pesca industrial pelágica deve obrigatoriamente desembarcar 25% das suas capturas nos portos locais. Esta obrigação foi inserida no acordo com o propósito de apoiar o desenvolvimento da indústria pesqueira local, que tem vindo a sofrer interrupções e falhas no abastecimento de matéria-prima.
Relativamente às questões suscitadas pela senhora deputada Fraga Estévez, nomeadamente no que toca aos cefalópodes e crustáceos, gostaria de frisar que o artigo 4º do protocolo prevê a possibilidade de rever as possibilidades de pesca no âmbito deste acordo, caso os relatórios científicos apontem para uma melhoria da situação de determinadas unidades populacionais. Com base nas conclusões dos encontros anuais da Comissão Científica, as duas partes poderão, conjuntamente, acordar em modificar as possibilidades de pesca existentes, contanto que fique assegurada a gestão sustentável do recurso em causa.
As possibilidades de pesca estabelecidas no acordo reflectem a quantidade total de espécies existentes, segundo as recomendações do relatório científico, e as capacidades da frota nacional marroquina. A Comissão não pretende reabrir a discussão em torno desta questão, salvo se dentro dos parâmetros previstos no artigo 4º. No que diz respeito à questão das modalidades, também aqui focada, evidentemente que as modalidades referidas são importantes, mas cumpre-me sublinhar que se trata aqui de questões técnicas que, pela sua natureza, não se encontram definidas no acordo.
Modalidades técnicas tais como o uso de lâmparas, o número de anzóis nos palangreiros e a questão dos desembarques das pescas industriais das espécies pelágicas serão afinadas por ocasião da primeira reunião da comissão mista, a ser convocada após a entrada em vigor do acordo, e certamente que não teremos problemas em manter o Parlamento e o sector plenamente informados a esse respeito. Nas nossas sessões regulares à porta fechada, poderão ser transmitidas informações sobre modificações técnicas. A próxima está prevista para o dia 21 de Junho e, se até lá já tivermos tido contacto com os representantes de Marrocos, certamente que daremos conhecimento à Comissão das Pescas dos resultados desses contactos.
A senhora deputada Fraga Estévez interrogou-me no sentido de saber até que ponto Marrocos avançou na via da conclusão do processo de adopção do acordo. Temos a informação de que está tudo a decorrer conforme o previsto. Não temos conhecimento de nenhuma dificuldade em especial por parte de Marrocos. O acordo deverá, pois, ser aprovado pelo Parlamento marroquino logo após a aprovação pela nossa parte, que terá lugar no mês de Junho.
Gostaria de agradecer a todos os que manifestaram o seu apoio ao acordo alcançado. No que diz respeito à questão levantada pela senhora deputada Corbey sobre a avaliação
gostaria de esclarecer que, em Setembro, a mesma foi enviada ao presidente da Comissão das Pescas e distribuída a todos os seus membros.
Quanto às questões suscitadas pela senhora deputada Attwool e outros, repito que, no que diz respeito ao Sara Ocidental, o texto do acordo foi elaborado com muito cuidado. Insisto em que esse texto não define nem emite juízos prévios sobre o estatuto legal das águas em causa. Quanto ao que os senhores deputados Schlyter, Hudghton, Guerreiro e outros afirmaram a respeito da questão de saber se Marrocos pode celebrar acordos que envolvem a exploração de recursos naturais do Sara Ocidental, o consultor jurídico das Nações Unidas tem uma resposta clara. Se bem que as Nações Unidas nunca tenham reconhecido Marrocos como potência administradora nos termos do artigo 73º da Carta das Nações Unidas, e Marrocos não conste como potência administradora do território na lista das Nações Unidas de territórios não autónomos - refiro-me ao ponto 7 do parecer do consultor jurídico das Nações Unidas -, poderão ser celebrados com o Reino de Marrocos acordos envolvendo a exploração de recursos naturais do Sara Ocidental.
Na sua interpretação, o consultor jurídico da ONU reconhece a competência de Marrocos para celebrar este tipo de acordos, ficando assim implícito que Marrocos detém poder administrativo
sobre o Sara Ocidental. O mandato confiado pelo Conselho à Comissão era no sentido de negociar com o Reino de Marrocos.
No quadro destes acordos, o direito internacional procura assegurar os direitos dos povos e nações a utilizar e explorar os recursos naturais dos seus territórios. Nesta perspectiva, os acordos são considerados compatíveis com as obrigações do poder administrativo impostas pela Carta, e obedecem à resolução da Assembleia-Geral e ao princípio nela consagrado da soberania permanente dos recursos naturais, se a exploração dos recursos em territórios não autónomos for considerada benéfica para os povos que habitam esses territórios e se for efectuada em nome deles ou em concertação com os seus representantes. Nesse sentido, Marrocos tem a obrigação de adoptar todas as medidas necessárias para assegurar que a aplicação do Acordo de parceria CE-Marrocos se processe no pleno respeito das obrigações estipuladas pelo direito internacional."@pt17
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@sk18
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his opening remarks. I fully understand the points raised regarding monitoring and I have no difficulty with keeping the Committee on Fisheries informed of how the agreement is actually implemented. I fully share the concern to keep Parliament informed of the various aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I would like to underline that the Commission already complies with the requirements on the transmission of information, in line with the current institutional arrangements. We have also continued discussions with the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries in order to try to improve the existing exchange of information and dialogue, in particular with regard to the conclusion and the ex-post follow-up to the conclusion of fisheries agreements.
May I say in response to Mrs Sudre’s and Mr Kristensen’s concerns that the agreement itself already guarantees certain benefits for the local population. In particular with regard to industrial pelagic fishery, which is focused on stock C, the agreement foresees the obligation to land 25% of captures. The main purpose of this provision is to contribute to the better supply of pelagic fish to the transformation industry that has in recent years suffered from irregular and short supplies of raw material. Additional economic incentives are therefore foreseen to encourage pelagic vessels to land a bigger part of their catches, more than the obligatory 25%, in the local ports in the south.
In addition to the above-mentioned landing obligation, the agreement also makes stipulations regarding services and infrastructure activities in the local ports in the south. That provides for additional earnings and contributes to development of these ports. The agreement also ensures additional support for the development of the coastal area through the following financial measures. The agreement sets an amount of at least EUR 4.75 million per year for the modernisation and upgrading of the coastal fleet. The agreement also specifies that part of the financial contribution should be used, among others, for the restructuring of small-scale fishing, training and support of professional organisations. The industrial pelagic fishery is under the obligation to land 25% of all catches in the local ports. This obligation has been inserted into the agreement in order to support the development of the local fishing industry, which suffers from an irregular or insufficient supply of raw material.
Concerning the points raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, in particular with regard to cephalopods and crustaceans, I would like to underline that Article 4 of the protocol provides for reviewing the fishing possibilities under the agreement if the scientific reports indicate an improvement of the situation of certain stocks. On the basis of the conclusions of the annual Scientific Committee meetings, the two parties can agree jointly to modify the existing fishing possibilities as long as sustainable management of the resource is ensured.
The fishing possibilities established in the agreement reflect the total amount of available species, as recommended by the scientific report, and the capacities of the Moroccan national fleet. The Commission does not intend to re-open discussion on this issue except within the parameters of Article 4. Also, with regard to the point raised concerning modalities, the modalities referred to are certainly important but let me emphasise that these are technical questions that by their nature are not defined in the agreement.
Technical modalities such as the use of lamparo, the number of hooks for long-liners and the issue of landings for industrial pelagic fishery will be fine-tuned during the first Joint Committee meeting that will be convened after the entry into force of the agreement, and we certainly have no problem with keeping Parliament and the sector fully informed. Information could be given on technical modifications during our regular closed session meetings. The next one is foreseen for 21 June and if by then we have already had contact with the Moroccans, we will certainly report back to the Committee on Fisheries on the outcome of those contacts.
I was asked by Mrs Fraga Estévez how far Morocco has proceeded with regard to concluding the process of adoption of the agreement. Our information is that everything is moving smoothly. We do not know of any particular difficulties on the Moroccan side. It should therefore be adopted by the Moroccan Parliament immediately after we have adopted it some time in June.
I would like to thank all those who have expressed support for the agreement reached. Regarding the point raised by Mrs Corbey concerning the ex-ante evaluation, let me say that it was sent in September to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and distributed to all members of the Committee on Fisheries.
As regards the points raised by Mrs Attwooll and a number of others, I repeat that concerning Western Sahara the wording used in the agreement was formulated very carefully. I repeat that it neither defines nor prejudges the legal status of the waters concerned. Again, with regard to what Mr Schlyter, Mr Hudghton, Mr Guerreiro and others said on the question as to whether Morocco can conclude agreements that concern the exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara, the United Nations legal adviser gives a clear answer. Although the United Nations has never recognised Morocco as an administrative power in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Morocco is not listed as an administering power of the territory in the United Nations’ list of non-self-governing territories – this is point 7 of the Opinion of the United Nations legal adviser – agreements can be concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the exploitation of natural resources of Western Sahara.
The interpretation given by the UN legal adviser recognises the competence of Morocco to conclude these types of agreements and in this way implies that Morocco is a de facto administrative power of the territory of Western Sahara; the mandate given to the Commission by the Council was to negotiate with the Kingdom of Morocco.
In the framework of these agreements, international law seeks to assure the right of peoples and nations to use and dispose of the natural resources in their territories. In that respect, the agreements are considered compatible with the Charter obligation of the administering power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolution and the principle of permanent sovereignty of natural resources enshrined therein, if the exploitation of the resources in non-self-governing territories is considered for the benefit of the peoples of those territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. In that respect, Morocco is under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the EC-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with the obligations of international law."@sl19
"Herr talman! Först och främst vill jag tacka Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna för hans inledningsanförande. Jag har full förståelse för de frågor som tagits upp om kontrollen och jag har inga svårigheter med att hålla fiskeriutskottet informerat om hur avtalet verkligen tillämpas. Jag instämmer helt i att det är angeläget att parlamentet hålls informerat om de olika aspekterna av genomförandet av protokollet. Jag vill understryka att kommissionen redan uppfyller kraven på översändande av information, i linje med de nuvarande institutionella arrangemangen. Vi för även fortsatta diskussioner med ordföranden och ledamöterna i fiskeriutskottet för att försöka förbättra det befintliga informationsutbytet och dialogen, särskilt när det gäller ingåendet och efterhandsuppföljningen av ingåendet av fiskeavtal.
Som svar på Margie Sudres och Henrik Dam Kristensens farhågor vill jag säga att avtalet i sig redan garanterar vissa fördelar för den lokala befolkningen. Särskilt när det gäller pelagiskt industrifiske, vilket koncentreras på bestånd C, fastställs i avtalet en förpliktelse att landa 25 procent av fångsten. Huvudsyftet med denna bestämmelse är att bidra till bättre tillgång till pelagisk fisk för bearbetningsindustrin, som de senaste åren har lidit av en ojämn och knapp tillgång på råvaror. Därför har ytterligare stimulansåtgärder fastställts för att uppmuntra pelagiska fartyg att landa en större del av sin fångst, mer än de obligatoriska 25 procenten, i de lokala hamnarna i söder.
Förutom det ovannämnda landningskravet innehåller avtalet bestämmelser om tjänster och infrastrukturverksamheter i de lokala hamnarna i söder. Detta ger ytterligare intäkter och bidrar till utvecklingen av dessa hamnar. I avtalet garanteras även extra stöd för utvecklingen av kustområdet genom följande finansiella åtgärder. I avtalet fastställs ett belopp på minst 4,75 miljoner euro per år för att modernisera och uppgradera kustflottan. I avtalet uppges även att en del av det ekonomiska bidraget bland annat bör användas till omstrukturering av det småskaliga fisket samt till utbildning och stöd till branschorganisationer. Det pelagiska industrifisket är förpliktat att landa 25 procent av all fångst i de lokala hamnarna. Denna förpliktelse har införts i avtalet i syfte att stödja utvecklingen av den lokala fiskeindustrin, som lider av en ojämn och otillräcklig tillgång på råvaror.
Angående de frågor som togs upp av Carmen Fraga Estévez, särskilt när det gäller bläckfisk och skaldjur, vill jag betona att en översyn av fiskemöjligheterna möjliggörs i enlighet med avtalet i artikel 4 i protokollet, om de vetenskapliga utlåtandena visar att situationen för vissa bestånd har förbättrats. De två parterna kan på grundval av slutsatserna från de årliga sammanträdena i den vetenskapliga kommittén gemensamt finna en lösning för att ändra de befintliga fiskemöjligheterna så länge en hållbar förvaltning av resurserna garanteras.
De fiskemöjligheter som fastställs i avtalet speglar den totala mängden tillgängliga arter, i enlighet med rekommendationerna i det vetenskapliga utlåtandet och kapaciteten hos Marockos nationella flotta. Kommissionen tänker inte återuppta diskussionen om denna fråga, utom inom ramen för artikel 4. Och med hänsyn till den fråga som togs upp om bestämmelser är de bestämmelser som åsyftats säkert viktiga, men låt mig betona att det rör sig om tekniska frågor som till sin natur inte fastställs i avtalet.
Tekniska bestämmelser som till exempel användningen av lamparanät, antalet krokar för långrev och frågan om landningar för pelagiskt industrifiske kommer att finjusteras under det första mötet i den gemensamma kommitté som kommer att sammankallas efter det att avtalet har trätt i kraft, och vi har verkligen inga problem med att hålla parlamentet och sektorn fullt informerade. Information om tekniska ändringar skulle kunna ges i samband med våra regelbundna sammanträden inom stängda dörrar. Nästa sammanträde planeras äga rum den 21 juni och om vi då redan har haft kontakt med marockanerna kommer vi naturligtvis att rapportera tillbaka till fiskeriutskottet om resultatet av dessa kontakter.
Carmen Fraga Estévez frågade mig hur långt Marocko har nått när det gäller avslutandet av processen att anta avtalet. Vår information är att allt går smidigt. Vi känner inte till några särskilda problem på den marockanska sidan. Avtalet bör därför antas av det marockanska parlamentet omedelbart efter att vi har antagit det någon gång i juni.
Jag vill tacka alla dem som har uttryckt stöd för det avtal som träffats. När det gäller den fråga som togs upp av Dorette Corbey om förhandsutvärderingen vill jag säga att den skickades i september till ordföranden för fiskeriutskottet och delades ut till alla ledamöterna i fiskeriutskottet.
Apropå de frågor som Elspeth Attwooll och några andra tog upp vill jag upprepa att när det gäller Västsahara formulerades den ordalydelse som används i avtalet mycket noggrant. Jag upprepar att den varken fastställer eller föregriper den rättsliga statusen för de berörda vattnen. Återigen, med hänsyn till vad Carl Schlyter, Ian Hudghton, Pedro Guerreiro med flera sa angående frågan om huruvida Marocko kan ingå avtal som berör utnyttjandet av Västsaharas naturresurser så ger FN:s juridiska rådgivare ett tydligt svar. Även om FN aldrig har erkänt Marocko som administrativ makt i enlighet med artikel 73 i FN:s stadga och Marocko inte finns med som territoriets styrande makt på FN:s lista över icke självstyrande territorier – detta är punkt 7 i yttrandet från FN:s juridiska rådgivare – så kan avtal ingås med Konungariket Marocko angående utnyttjandet av Västsaharas naturresurser.
Enligt den tolkning som FN:s juridiska rådgivare har gett erkänns Marockos behörighet att ingå den här typen av avtal, vilket innebär att Marocko är den makt som de facto styr Västsaharas territorium; det mandat som kommissionen fick av rådet var att förhandla med Konungariket Marocko.
Inom ramen för dessa avtal strävar man inom internationell rätt efter att säkra folkens och nationernas rätt att använda och förfoga över naturresurserna i deras territorier. Med hänsyn till detta anses avtalen vara förenliga med stadgans förpliktelse för styrande makter och i överensstämmelse med generalförsamlingens resolution och tillhörande princip om permanent suveränitet över naturresurser ifall utnyttjandet av resurserna i icke självstyrande territorier är avsett till förmån för människorna i dessa territorier, på deras vägnar eller i samråd med deras företrädare. Marocko är därför förpliktat att vidta alla nödvändiga åtgärder för att se till att avtalet om fiskepartnerskap mellan EG och Marocko tillämpas fullt ut i enlighet med förpliktelserna i internationell rätt."@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
"de facto"3,17
"ex-ante"17,12
"status"12
"stock"12
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples