Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-09-Speech-3-533"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080709.43.3-533"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, thank you very much for all those interventions and for the number of questions that have been placed. I will try to respond to as many of them as I can given the fact that we did not have sufficient time as we usually have within the Fisheries Committee and in Plenary to discuss proposals given the urgent nature of this proposal.
Concerning the point as to whether the proposal attacks the causes of the problem, I would state my belief that in fact there are two primary objectives: tackling over-capacity, as I have just said, so that we can survive in a profitable way long into the future, and also trying to assist fishers to get a fair price for their catch. I have just outlined the measures that we are proposing in this regard.
With regard to the question, raised by General Morillon, concerning measures which should not be implemented to the detriment of those who have already undergone restructuring, and with regard to the point raised by Mr Allister and Mrs Attwooll and others, these are very relevant. I would like to say that in general terms, if there is further reduction of capacity by some Member States, this will benefit other Member States, because if there is a reduction of capacity with a consequent reduction of effort, there would be more resources and more market opportunities.
However, more specifically let me say that the proposed ad hoc instrument to which I will come to soon will be designed in such a way as to set criteria that are needs-based and do not follow the EFF so that, for example, the requirements of those who have already undertaken substantial restructurings are recognised and that those who have low EFF allocations are also recognised.
On the question of social aid, first of all we have to see how this measure will be defined in practice. To the extent that the measure only provides benefits to workers and not to companies, it might be that aid elements are not even involved. Therefore that would mean that the process of adoption of this would be faster.
If an amendment to the state aid guidelines is required, then we will prepare a Commission decision, which normally takes two to three months. Concerning the Irish court ruling, we shall analyse how the definition of workers as self-employed potentially impacts on the application of this measure, and will seek a solution in order to address the specific problem concerning Ireland.
On the request that emergency temporary cessation should not be linked to restructuring (which was also raised by Mrs Doyle), restructuring is relatively loosely defined in our package so there should be ample opportunity for vessels in trouble to adapt to new realities. They can receive aid now, and then they have six months to adapt. This link to restructuring has to be maintained for the emergency package, however, to have the desired result.
With regard to the question concerning the financial requirement which was raised by Mrs McGuinness, the financial requirement solely for the temporary and permanent cessation of fishing activities is estimated at around EUR 1.6 billion. The total financial requirement is estimated to be in the region of EUR 2 billion. The current programming of the EFF Axis 1 for these measures is estimated to cover around EUR 600 million with an estimated additional EUR 250 million coming from national co-financing.
The Commission further estimates that EUR 550 million will have to come from the programming of EFF operational programmes. Therefore this would leave a shortfall of EUR 600 million. So there is additionality as well. We are not just making use of EFF funds. There is an additionality of EUR 600 million. A substantial part of this amount could be financed through the unallocated margin under heading 2 of the financial framework ceilings for the years 2009-2010, with the bulk coming in 2009.
It is this additionality which could form the ad hoc instrument I referred to before. The ad hoc instrument should be needs-based, so it would not directly reflect the proportionate allocations under the EFF but should target those segments of the fleet that need to restructure but which would not find assistance under the EFF, either because the EFF allocation to the Member State concerned is very limited or because it relates to areas which are non-convergence and therefore which have very limited allocations of EFF, or because there is enormous demand and therefore the EFF falls short. So that is my response with regard to the financial allocations.
I would also like to make the point, in regard to the question raised, that while in the short term we are not proposing any miracle solution, we are providing for immediate temporary cessation for three months effective from 1 July 2008 and, as I said, we will be taking a flexible view with regard to the definition of restructuring, whereas with regard to the further temporary cessation provisions, those have to be part and parcel of a fleet adaptation scheme.
On
as we said in the communication, we will be carrying out the necessary economic analyses in the coming weeks and months and we intend to come forward with a Commission proposal, if appropriate, if the economic analysis shows that we can move forward in this direction and if WTO rules allow, before the end of this year.
But with regard to the first three months, as long as there is restructuring in a general way then the entitlement would apply.
On the point raised as to whether we can deliver within the time-frame because of conditionalities involved, my response is that most of the conditionalities relate to partial decommissioning which is a new instrument and which was very contentious even in reaching this stage. Removing partial decommissioning would remove also most of the conditionalities attached to it. I am sure, however, that this is not what you would want. But I can assure you that the Commission will urge Member States and the industry to take up the fleet adaptation schemes and to ensure that these are properly monitored and properly implemented so that the time-frames envisaged and the conditionalities set will be adhered to and respected.
Again I would like to say that it is not true to say that all measures relate to decommissioning of vessels. It is true that there is a continuation of total decommissioning but there is the introduction of partial decommissioning, and partial decommissioning means that we will be removing older vessels and introducing new smaller ones, and in this sense therefore there will be introduction of new vessels with lower capacity in absolute terms. We will have a real effective reduction of capacity but at the same time we will also have properly addressed the fuel problems.
There are also measures with regard to engine substitution and with regard to gear and equipment change, and there are the measures that I have outlined concerning the market measures and social aid. So I do not think it is correct to say that what we are proposing is simply a continuation of total decommissioning of vessels. There are various other instruments and I hope that Member States will be able to pick from these the ones that would in the most appropriate way address the concerns and realities of the sector.
With regard to the point made by Mrs Stihler concerning the fact that these could be harmful subsidies for new construction, I need to underline the fact that we will not be paying one cent for decommissioning for vessels whose capacity is maintained. What we will be paying is the scrapping aid for total decommissioning and we will be paying scrapping aid for the part that is decommissioned. We are not paying any state assistance for the capacity that remains. We are simply trying to find a solution whereby the necessary restructuring through reducing capacity, which we attempted by virtue of total decommissioning which has not proved too successful, might hopefully be more effectively addressed through this new instrument of partial decommissioning. The combination of partial decommissioning, total decommissioning, retaining vessels in operation with the possibility of engine substitutions, with the possibility of modernisation on board etc., all measures which already exist, and the whole package within a fleet adaptation scheme, could lead to a situation where we effectively bring about the needed reduction in capacity, which would translate to a reduction of effort to meet with the present state of affairs we have concerning the health of fish stocks.
I just want to conclude with regard to the original intervention by Mrs Stihler that I can only repeat the well-known maxim that you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
The subsequent, quite lengthy procedure involving consultation of the advisory committee of Member States and of stakeholders, and the final adoption by the Commission will normally take around six months. So we are speaking of a time frame which is quite extensive, it is true. However, I need to underline that the
is not the solution to the restructuring of the fleet which is needed.
Whether we like it or not we have a situation of significant over-capacity, and unless we address it effectively we are never going to find a permanent solution. It is no use, I have said it on a number of occasions, throwing money at the problem without trying to address the real cause of the problem, and this is what we are attempting to do. We are willing to give assistance immediately and in the medium term to fishers but we are also stressing that there needs to be effective restructuring. Otherwise we will need to come back here, year in year out, to discuss the same issue. So I need to make this abundantly clear: the Commission is not prepared simply to throw money at the problem. So any form of permanent operating gate to fishers is a non-starter. This is why I need to make it abundantly clear that we need to really address the problem. So that is my answer on
which we are looking into.
Concerning market measures, we will be providing more specifics and making the situation much clearer, because there are various fronts on which we intend to deliver on this. First of all we will be making more financing available for POs and other industry associations in order to elaborate fishing plans, marketing plans, quality initiatives, labelling initiatives and inter-branch initiatives. And, as shown in other countries, for example in Norway, we can see how POs can work efficiently to assist the catching sector. As we indicated in our communication, these are not new tools or instruments. They are outlined extensively in both the CMO and in the EFF. The problem is that, so far, industry and Member States have not promoted them sufficiently.
With regard to the price monitoring system, again, together with the industry and the Member States we will use this additional knowledge to set up monitoring tools along the value chain to help the sector to anticipate price developments more effectively in the future. The Commission has launched a study on this issue which will be completed in September. There is political momentum on this issue on a wider level. The recent European summit has supported wider initiatives of the Commission for monitoring food prices and price development mechanisms. Again, additional funding for a price monitoring system on fish prices will be made available by the budgetary authorities by September. We will start the work immediately, first through launching a pilot project on the scope and modalities of this exercise, and the full price monitoring system should then be defined and become operational before the end of 2009.
Concerning more control with respect to certification, labelling requirements and mitigating IEU, here again, the Commission will give financial support to industry initiatives in the area of market monitoring, and in particular in relation to monitoring the sector’s compliance with legal requirements concerning certification, labelling etc. We plan to launch calls for proposals by the end of 2008 whereby we would invite sectoral organisations to elaborate concrete proposals, and implementation of these projects will start during 2009.
Then in 2009 we also have the full CMO review. So I will try to give some indicative time-frames with regard to the various market measures that we are envisaging.
On the question of the reference period raised by both Mrs Fraga and Mrs Doyle, I can repeat again that the preliminary assessment of this suggestion indicates that we can take this on board. We realise that the fuel situation has changed considerably since 2007 and it does seem logical that current realities should be reflected in the aim of this package. We will nevertheless need to ensure that all economic data used for the reference period 2007 to 2008 are an accurate depiction of the economic situation for the fleet and vessels concerned. The mandatory 30% capacity reduction will still be maintained. The possible impact of using the 2008 figures could indirectly lead to more extensive application of the package. So I can confirm that we will be moving forward and taking on board this suggestion that came from the Fisheries Committee this morning."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"de minimis,"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples