Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-18-Speech-3-298"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080618.24.3-298"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would firstly like to thank everyone for their comments, for the various points that they have raised and also for the general expression of support for the package that the Commission intends to propose.
We are also proposing to extend further a number of socioeconomic measures which are eligible under EFF. On
aid we are looking at making provisions so that if, on an economic analysis, it proves to be feasible, then our proposal would be to extend the
aid from EUR 30 000 per enterprise to EUR 30 000 per vessel but with a maximum cap of EUR 100 000 per enterprise.
The longer-term measures would relate to EFF premiums for permanent cessation of fleets in restructuring, so that we would lift any limitations on access to permanent cessation premiums; and additional aid for temporary cessation, so that beyond the first three months that I mentioned, we will be proposing that there will be an additional three months to be taken during the period of restructuring, where vessels will be necessarily laid up because of the restructuring process. This would be up to the period of 1 January 2010, and for an additional three months if the restructuring needs to go beyond 1 January 2010. So it would be a maximum of six months beyond the three months given as an emergency aid.
We are also providing for increasing the aid intensity for modernisation schemes. Today the private financial participation is 60% and 80% for gear and engine replacement respectively. We are proposing to reduce the private financial participation to 40%. We are doing this because we realise that the private sector – the private entrepreneurs, the fishermen – are not in a position to be able to significantly part-finance any restructuring out of their own pockets. We are trying to make it as easy as possible for fishermen to undertake restructuring by providing the lion’s share of the expense that will be incurred.
We are also allowing for the granting of partial decommissioning. In other words, if there is a group of vessels and that group of vessels represents, say, 100 000 tonnes, and they undertake to decommission 50 000 or 60 000 tonnes, leaving 40 000 tonnes by virtue of which they want to construct new vessels, then for the amount partially decommissioned – for the 50 000 or 60 000 tonnes – they would be given decommissioning aid. Obviously that would mean that the size of the fleet would be reduced. You would have a newer fleet but this would mean that the compensation would have been paid for the amount by which it had been reduced.
We are also proposing social aid in the form of decreased social security contributions. In other words, what we are proposing is that there will be the possibility for the contributions payable by fishermen, and not the contributions payable by the enterprises employing them, to be exempted on condition that the remuneration of the fishermen is not reduced and on condition that the fishermen remain in receipt of the same social benefits under any existing schemes.
With regard to market measures – a point mentioned by Mrs Fraga – I would like to state that there are various measures which we are proposing: increasing fishermen’s bargaining position vis-à-vis the processing industry and distributors by joining forces with larger POs or local marketing associations; establishing a price monitoring system to better understand the factors determining market prices; improving predictability of sourcing for EU-origin products for the industry; promoting quality initiatives like labelling and better handling and processing; promoting information to consumers; health and nutrition; responsible fishing; market audit assessment; developing tools to analyse the value chain and prices; and verifying the correct implementation of the monitoring of labelling measures and IUU.
We are also making available from our own funds – from other fisheries funds – for the first year, EUR 20-25 million in order specifically to launch other projects in cooperation with the sector in the area of market monitoring, labelling etc. We are prepared to reopen discussions with Member States – even though we have just concluded them – on the existing operational programmes in order to ensure that the European fisheries funds are focused more on these restructuring programmes. We are facilitating the use of the European Fisheries Fund. For example – just to mention one point in addition – it is proposed to double the EFF pre-financing amount paid by the Commission after the adoption of the operational programmes from the current 7% to 14% of the total EFF contribution.
I have two final points. Mrs Fraga said that we could have done more before. I would like just to introduce a nuance to this. We could have acted differently before. We could have avoided incentivising and encouraging over-capacity and not thrown precious public money at unwarranted huge increases of capacity way beyond what the stocks of our fish can reasonably sustain.
Concerning Mrs Doyle’s remarks – that the CFP has failed miserably – I simply do not agree. It is because of the CFP that we can put forward proposed common solutions as we are doing now, instead of witnessing individual Member States joining in a race downhill in the direction of the total destruction of fishing.
I would like to say that this is not the end of the whole process but just the beginning. We still need to steer these proposals through Council and Parliament and I would repeat that we need your full support in order to get these proposals through as rapidly as possible, especially in those parts which would require legislative amendment.
What I have presented represents, in my view, the limits of flexibility in addressing the short-term crisis, with a view to putting in place a medium- and longer-term perspective of restructuring, in order to regain sustainability of resources and the profitability of the sector. I agree that these measures should not be seen in isolation but also within the context of the ongoing discussions concerning IUU, discards, eco-labelling and various other measures which we are in the process of having adopted.
With regard to IUU for example, I hope that on Tuesday of next week a decision will be taken in Council on the proposed regulation to effectively combat IUU fishing, on which the European Parliament has given overwhelming support.
I would like to say to Mr Davies that we are not proposing to throw money at the problem, but to provide assistance with a view to restructuring – as I said, to regain sustainable fishing and profitable fishing. I would invite Mr Davies to examine what we would be proposing and, if he has any specific comments to make, I would certainly welcome them. Yes, we will work to enable the proper market mechanisms to operate rather than continuing to allow a few huge operators to dominate the market when setting fish prices.
In response to what Mr Allister said, the package makes it more attractive for Member States to take up what is available under the European Fisheries Fund, and therefore we hope that Member States will fully engage. We will be discussing this in next week’s Council in order to implement effectively these measures that we are proposing.
I will just go very briefly through the measures that are envisaged.
First of all, we are looking at the emergency measures, where we are proposing assistance for temporary cessation for fishing vessels (and this also goes in the direction of sustainability) for a maximum period of three months in addition to what is already in the European Fisheries Fund, and not linked exclusively to biological reasons. Such a measure may finance cruise costs and fixed costs of vessels. This measure will only apply in cases where there is an explicit commitment that the enterprises benefiting from it will be included in a restructuring plan within a period of six months.
A second provision relates to the increase in the EFF aid intensity for fuel-saving equipment. We are proposing that the mandatory private financial participation will be at a lower rate and will therefore be at 40% of its present level."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples