Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-09-Speech-1-050-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110509.17.1-050-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Commission is aware of the current situation in the fishing sector. Fuel prices are one reason for the problems we have, but they are not the only reason.
With reference to fuel prices, in order to address this situation, the Commission encourages the Member States to use fully the possibilities offered by the European Fisheries Fund. We have not used those possibilities. Up to now, the Member States have used less than 20% of the overall allocation.
The high fuel prices could be best addressed by the use of those EFF measures that help to restructure the fishing fleet and add more value to fisheries products, thus improving prices. It is likely that fuel prices will remain high in the coming years. Of course, last week the prices fell, but nevertheless we can expect prices to remain high.
Therefore, the Commission is reflecting, in the framework of the reform of the common fisheries policy and the Financial Regulation, on how to further incentivise less fuel-intensive fishing. The objective will be to encourage the adjustment of the sector and to increase its resilience to fuel prices. However, such an approach needs to respect the principle that financial assistance may not, under any circumstances, increase fishing effort.
The best way to increase the resilience of the fisheries sector to fuel prices is to ensure that fishing levels are in line with maximum sustainable yield. This will lead to more abundant fish stocks in the mid-term. More fish mean more fishing opportunities, and that means higher revenues for the sector in general.
With reference to the increase of the
threshold, this is not a new issue. The Commission conducted a study, back in 2008, analysing the effect of moving from the ceiling of EUR 30 000 to EUR 100 000 per beneficiary.
The study concluded that we could not accept this proposal, mainly for three reasons. First, because such an increase would distort fishing operations towards more fuel-intensive technologies with greater negative impact on the marine environment. Second, because larger and more fuel-intensive vessels would receive more funding than smaller and less fuel-intensive vessels. I do not think that anybody here would like to encourage the bigger vessels to use more fuel.
The third reason is much more important, and some Members of Parliament have already mentioned it. Many Member States are now forced to implement austerity measures. Therefore, there would only be limited political support from Member States for a proposal that could lead to an increase in public expenditure. Even if the
threshold was increased, many Member States would not have the money to actually exploit this new opportunity to spend taxpayers’ money. If only some Member States paid higher
aid, this would distort competition and result in an uneven playing field for the fleets of different Member States. This is the most important reason of all.
As to the reduction of the fuel tax exemption of the fishing industry raised by the Greens, we cannot accept that. This issue cannot be tackled appropriately by EU legislation alone, but needs to be discussed at a global level. Taxing fuel taken up in EU ports alone would lead to massive competitive distortions, to the detriment of EU fleets. It would also harm EU ports, as many vessels would simply buy fuel outside the European Union. That is why we urge the Member States to use our Funds."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples