Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-05-Speech-4-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010405.4.4-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the proposal for a Council decision represents the continuation of a policy of providing Member States with financial support to fund infrastructure required by this fundamental pillar of the common fisheries policy.
The reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to the decision to establishing a reduction of EUR 41 to 35 million per year in spending on control operations is surprising, since it is very likely that the establishment of an adequate infrastructure for the control and surveillance programmes will require that today’s financial burden be increased rather than reduced in the future.
Amendment No 2 raises the percentage of Community funding for acquiring and modernising inspection and control equipment from 30% to 35%. The majority of investment has already been made in this respect and the majority of future action will be in terms of modernisation. In any case, as the investment is costly and – we should not forget this – we are talking about control of a common policy, the percentage of Community funding should be slightly increased.
To conclude, I must confess that I was tempted to begin a more detailed discussion about the future of the control system after the reform. However, the experiences of recent reports which, by looking into the future, have lost some of their effectiveness, led me to take a more modest and immediate approach.
The proposal establishes the priority of implementing new technologies, using IT networks, possibly making satellite monitoring systems standard practice, training officials responsible for policing and the intervention systems which need to be introduced in order to meet the Union’s obligations to regional fisheries organisations.
Although in general the Commission’s proposal is acceptable, there are two aspects that conflict with the line adopted by the Committee on Fisheries and the European Parliament in other matters closely related with the one that we are dealing with.
Parliament has highlighted in recent reports on regional fisheries organisations that responsibility for control and surveillance within them should be solely that of the Community, and that it should be up to the institutions of the European Union, and particularly the Commission, to adopt the necessary measures to meet these obligations. As a result, it is logical that the action should be funded from the Community budget.
Given that the regional fisheries organisations are going to increase in importance in the future of the common fisheries policy, it is appropriate to follow the line defined by previous reports adopted by Parliament.
From the Commission proposal it can be understood that in the future the contribution to the work of the regional fisheries organisations would also be entrusted, at least partly, to the Member States, as would the tasks of inspection and monitoring. While there is a common fisheries policy and the Community has powers in the area of fisheries, it should act as such and equip itself with the human and financial resources to deal with its obligations, as required by the principle of sufficient resources for the common fisheries policy.
Applying this principle has financial implications and requires legal developments and perhaps giving up some sovereignty, but, if a certain model of political construction is accepted, the resources need to be put in place so that the model can be put into practice.
The current situation does not exactly square with this model, as core responsibility for control lies with the Member States, and there is a need for a reasonable period for adapting the structures to the aforementioned model.
It is up to the Member States, on a transitional basis, perhaps for the three years covered by the programme contained in this decision, to continue to exercise these responsibilities as representatives of the Union. However, this is no obstacle to reimbursing the Member States immediately for the full amount of the expenditure arising from these Community obligations, and for that reason, instead of co-funding, 100% of that expenditure should be reimbursed. This is the aim of Amendment No 1 of the draft report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples