Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-05-Speech-4-065-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120705.9.4-065-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members. I would like firstly to thank Mr Mato Adrover for his question, which raises truly complex but important matters. The question relates, in reality, to two issues: on the one hand, to the latest results of the international negotiations on how the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) should apply to marine specimens caught on the high seas, and, on the other hand, to the need to ensure that the provisions on the chartering of vessels do not undermine the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
The new conditions under which chartering countries would be entitled to issue CITES documentation are the following: first, the chartering operations need to be subject to a prior agreement between the chartering country and the flag state; second, this agreement needs to be consistent with the relevant RFMO framework on chartering; and third, it needs to be made available to the CITES secretariat, to the RFMO and to all the parties. In addition, the CITES secretariat would monitor these provisions and report on their implementation at the CITES Standing Committee meetings, thus ensuring proper monitoring and compliance.
The specific situation of chartering operations has been the subject of long and detailed discussions in numerous RFMOs and, subsequently, in the CITES working group. The EU traditionally supports a policy in RFMOs whereby it endeavours to restrict chartering practices, to avoid any risk of confusion as to which state is responsible for a given activity by a given ship at a given moment in time. However, it has also accepted that within some RFMOs, such practices exist, with the flag state remaining fully responsible for issuing catch documentation.
The EU therefore wants to make sure that any solution within CITES is compatible with the EU policy against IUU fishing and is respectful of flag state jurisdiction. The key consideration is to assess whether the safeguards contained in the proposal are sufficient in this respect. There was a discussion – which has been mentioned – with the Member States on this sensitive issue earlier this week. That meeting was inconclusive. The Commission is still considering the specific provisions on chartering contained in the proposal and has not yet reached a final conclusion – the only reason for this being the seriousness of the decision which we have to make.
The issue is on the agenda of the forthcoming CITES Standing Committee meeting on 23-27 July and, subsequently, on the agenda of the Conference of the Parties in March 2013. The issue of chartering will also be raised in various RFMOs in the coming months. The Commission will continue to work towards finalising its assessment in view of those meetings, and it will make sure that Parliament is kept informed about the development of the EU position on these matters.
It is essential that the Parties to CITES reach a common understanding on the concept of ‘introduction from the sea’ without undermining the fight against IUU, and the EU will seek to ensure that flag states retain the central responsibility here.
As we have heard, I attended Rio+20 less than two weeks ago. Many have criticised the summit but, in fact, the protection of high-seas biodiversity is an area in which the need for much more progress was universally recognised. The EU has always been at the forefront on this issue, and that will continue to be the case. The Commission believes that multilateral solutions coupled with rigorous enforcement are key instruments here.
The EU is a central player in regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), which typically cover the majority of commercially traded species, including tuna. The EU will pursue its ambitious policy in those organisations, pressing for the adoption of sound measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks, and for their strict implementation by all the parties. With regard to control, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides that authority over a ship rests with the flag state. All fisheries-specific UN instruments are based on that responsibility. The 2008 IUU Regulation is also based on this principle.
The EU shows the same level of ambition in relation to multilateral environmental agreements, including CITES, which regulates international trade in endangered species and currently covers 30 000 plant and animal species, among them approximately 100 aquatic species. CITES is widely seen as one of the most effective international agreements in the field of the environment, due notably to its effective compliance mechanisms and its universal coverage.
The Commission has no doubt that the European Union should be ready to use international fisheries instruments and CITES in pursuit of one and the same objective – namely, to ensure the long-term conservation of fish stocks on the high seas. This is vital not only for marine biodiversity, but also for fishing operators who depend on healthy stocks for the future of their economic activities.
Discussions have been taking place over the last 20 years on how CITES should apply to high-seas species. More precisely, the problematic point has been to define the state responsible for issuing the documentation required under CITES to allow trade in those species to take place.
The Commission has been very active in that debate. In line with the UNCLOS rules, the EU has consistently pushed for recognition of the flag state as the one responsible for issuing CITES documentation. In defending that position, we have encountered considerable opposition. Most other parties did not share our views and wanted this role to be assigned to the port state.
Where are we now in those discussions? After a long period of stalemate, the question has been intensely debated over the past three years in a specific working group. As a result, we are now close to an agreement. The proposal by the working group provides for flag states to play a central role in issuing the relevant CITES documents, with a derogation under which chartering states may also issue them subject to certain conditions.
Under the CITES proposal, the principle is that the flag state is responsible for issuing the CITES documentation – including in cases of chartering operations except in certain circumstances, and subject to conditions, under which the chartering country would be in charge of issuing it. This arrangement is a first, as existing RFMO rules do not allow for similar catch documentation to be issued by any authority other than that of the flag state."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples