Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-188"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.10.3-188"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Commission, I should like to start by thanking the two rapporteurs for their comprehensive reports on the three proposals on highly migratory fish stocks. Fishing of these species has certain characteristics in common, irrespective of where it takes place, which is why we have proposed a coherent package of measures. Our aim is to implement the recommendations of various international organisations in which the Community is actively working for these resources to be preserved.
Let me start with a few comments on the two regulations, one on control measures and one on technical measures. We have included both new and existing provisions in these regulations. As the international tuna fishing organisations are very proactive and decide on new measures every year, we have suggested a fast-track procedure which will allow new measures or changes to existing control and technical measures to be implemented for the Community quickly and efficiently. I am delighted that Parliament also supports this idea.
As regards the proposed amendments, I should point out that we can accept the first amendment to the regulation on control measures if it is changed, i.e. the Commission proposes that it submit a report on control measures in the Member States to Parliament and the Council every three years. This would then be coherent with the control regulation which applies to internal fisheries. The amendments to the regulation on technical measures are acceptable to the Commission in substance, but there is a procedural problem here. I think it would be better to take account of this problem when the regulation on technical measures is next amended. That way, the present proposals could be implemented immediately and I would gladly promise to submit a new proposal to implement the most recent measures decided in the international tuna fishing organisations by 1 October 2001, i.e. by 1 October this year. We shall then consider your amendments in a fitting manner in this proposal. Which is why, at this point in time, I am unable to accept Amendment Nos 1 to 7, which concern, as stated, the procedural issue and the start date of this proposal. Amendment Nos 8 and 9 concern technical measures, which we can accept.
Now to the regulation on financial support for the assignment of observers. This proposal is part of the Commission strategy set out in our communication on regional fisheries organisations. We want to promote the introduction of a system of observers working on board Community ships in order to guarantee that juveniles, especially tropical tuna juveniles, are protected. Hence our proposal of financial support.
Now you are calling for the Commission to bear the full cost of this observation system. I should point out that it is primarily the duty of the Member States to implement Community law, in all areas. The Commission has not plucked the proposed figure of 50% out of thin air; it is based on past practice or, more specifically, on the 1995 Council resolution on the cofinancing of control measures. Which is why the Commission cannot, unfortunately, agree to the proposed amendments to the regulation on financial support for observers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples