PREPORUKA o prijedlogu Odluke Vijeća o donošenju Protokola kojim se utvrđuju mogućnosti ribolova i financijski doprinos predviđeni Sporazumom o partnerstvu u ribarstvu između Europske zajednice s jedne strane i Republike Kiribatija s druge strane
22.10.2013 - (13331/2012 – C7‑0036/2013 – 2012/0229(NLE)) - ***
Odbor za ribarstvo
Izvjestiteljica: Isabella Lövin
NACRT ZAKONODAVNE REZOLUCIJE EUROPSKOG PARLAMENTA
o prijedlogu Odluke Vijeća o donošenju Protokola kojim se utvrđuju mogućnosti ribolova i financijski doprinos predviđeni Sporazumom o partnerstvu u ribarstvu između Europske zajednice s jedne strane i Republike Kiribatija s druge strane
(13331/2012 – C7‑0036/2013 – 2012/0229(NLE))
(Suglasnost)
Europski parlament,
– uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Odluke Vijeća (13331/2012),
– uzimajući u obzir Protokol kojim se utvrđuju mogućnosti ribolova i financijski doprinos predviđeni Sporazumom o partnerstvu u ribarstvu između Europske zajednice s jedne strane i Republike Kiribatija s druge strane (13331/2012),
– uzimajući u obzir zahtjev Vijeća za davanje suglasnosti u skladu s člankom 43. stavkom 2. i člankom 218. stavkom 6. podstavkom 2. točkom (a) Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije (C7‑0036/2013),
– uzimajući u obzir članak 81. i članak 90. stavak 7. Poslovnika,
– uzimajući u obzir preporuku Odbora za ribarstvo i mišljenja Odbora za proračune i Odbora za razvoj (A7-0345/2013),
1. Daje suglasnost za sklapanje sporazuma;
2. poziva Komisiju da proslijedi Parlamentu zapisnike i zaključke sa sjednica zajedničkog odbora predviđenog člankom 10. Sporazuma, kao i višegodišnji sektorski program spomenut u članku 3. Protokola i odgovarajuće rezultate godišnjeg ocjenjivanja; poziva Komisiju da omogući sudjelovanje predstavnikâ Parlamenta kao promatrača na sjednicama zajedničkoga odbora; poziva Komisiju da Parlamentu i Vijeću u posljednjoj godini primjene Protokola i prije početka pregovora oko njegova produženja predstavi detaljan izvještaj o ocjeni njegove provedbe, bez nametanja nepotrebnih ograničenja kad je riječ o pristupu tom dokumentu;
3. poziva Vijeće i Komisiju da, u skladu s vlastitim ovlastima, ažurno i u potpunosti informiraju Parlament u svim fazama postupaka povezanih s novim Protokolom i njegovim produženjem, u skladu s člankom 13. stavkom 2. Ugovora o Europskoj uniji i člankom 218. stavkom 10. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije;
4. nalaže svojem predsjedniku da stajalište Parlamenta proslijedi Vijeću, Komisiji te vladama i parlamentima država članica i Republike Kiribatija.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction
The new protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) with Kiribati provides access for Spanish, French and Portuguese vessels to Kiribati waters from 16 September 2012 to 15 September 2015.
However, this rapporteur believes that in several ways, the protocol has the potential to undermine efforts by a small island developing States (SIDS) to manage the exploitation of tuna resources and to increase their revenues from them. It therefore fails to contribute to the sustainable management of tuna resources in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO).
Kiribati and the Parties to the Nauru Agreement
Kiribati has very few resources available other than fish occurring in its vast Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). License fees to foreign vessels provide 20-30% of Government revenue.[1] The country has one of the lowest GDPs per capita of the region and is classified as a least developed ACP State.
The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA),[2] of which Kiribati is a party, was set up to ensure co-ordinated fisheries management in the EEZs of its members and to increase the benefits obtained from fish resources. It is a binding Treaty-level instrument. Its members have negotiated several implementing agreements which spell out licensing minimum terms and conditions, such as provisions on vessel monitoring, transhipments, area closures, gear restrictions, landing obligations, observer coverage, as well as a Vessel Days Scheme (VDS). Third countries' fishing vessels operating in PNA EEZs must abide by these provisions.
PNA waters supply 50% of the world’s skipjack tuna supply.
The Vessel Days Scheme
Under the VDS vessel owners can purchase and trade days fishing at sea in order to access PNA waters. According to the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), an advisory Pacific body:
“The purpose of the VDS is to constrain and reduce catches of target tuna species, and increase the rate of return from fishing activities […] The PNA set the total number of days that can be fished in their waters combined and the apportionment of the total number of days between each country.”
The VDS includes effort allocation rules and other requirements such as a minimum fee under which no vessel day should be sold. Its implementation has led to access fees which ranged from less than US$ 2,000/day in 2009 to a minimum fee agreed by PNA of US$ 5,000/day in 2012, with many vessel days traded at US$ 8,000/day. In May 2013 PNA has increased the minimum fee to US$ 6,000/day.
Since 2008, the relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO), the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) mandate the use of the VDS as the mechanism to regulate fishing effort by third countries' fleets in the EEZs of PNA members.[3] Therefore, even though the EU is not a member of the PNA, the EU is bound to respect the VDS since it is a Contracting Party to the WCPFC.
EU obligations in respect of Small Island Developing States
The UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), ratified by both the EU and Kiribati, calls on States to cooperate “to enhance the ability of developing States, in particular the least-developed among them and small island developing States, to conserve and manage straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks”.[4]
The UNFSA Review Conference, in May 2010, further called to “encourage the identification of strategies that further assist developing States, in particular the least developed and small island developing States, in realizing a greater share of the benefits from the catch of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and in strengthening regional efforts to sustainably conserve and manage such stocks”. The UN General Assembly, further supports these goals.[5]
Article 208 of the TFEU obliges the EU to take into account the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.
Main provisions in the new protocol
The new three year protocol grants access to 10 EU fishing vessels (4 purse seiners and 6 longliners) with a reference tonnage of 15,000 tonnes of highly migratory species per year. Currently only the purse seiners are using the protocol.
Of a total financial contribution of €1,325,000 for the two years of the protocol, €975,000 correspond to access to resources and €350,000 to supporting Kiribati's sectorial fisheries policy.
Critically important, though, is the fact that the protocol fails to incorporate the VDS and imposes no limit on effort deployed in Kiribati other than the number of vessels. Yet Kiribati had made clear at the start of the negotiations that they intended to base it on the VDS.[6] This is also recognized in the ex-post evaluation of the previous protocol. The EU and Kiribati are thus contravening the major fisheries management measure adopted by both the PNA and the WCPFC.
Potential loss of revenue by Pacific Island States
Many PNA members perceive access fees set unilaterally outside the agreed VDS framework – as is done by the EU-Kiribati agreement - as a threat to the scheme that they have carefully developed in recent years to negotiate minimum access fees in order to increase their chances to obtain fair revenue.
The lack of adherence of the new protocol to the VDS may be depriving Kiribati and the region from income. In relation to the cost of access under the previous protocol, its ex-post evaluation states that “the average payment over 2007 to 2011 was €3,350/US$4,675 a day, i.e. close to the current PNA benchmark price of US$ 5,000 a day.”[7] However, such average is explained only by the high catch rates in 2007. In any other year, the figures are significantly lower: in 2011, Kiribati received from the EU the equivalent to US$ 3,559 per vessel day and only US$ 2,308 in 2009 (see table 1). PNA countries have just agreed a new benchmark of US$ 6,000 a day in May 2013. Such minimum benchmark could be reviewed in coming years. But many transactions are completed well above that benchmark, at prices which can reach US$ 8,000.
By insisting on remaining outside the VDS, the EU is maintaining a relatively low access fee that distorts the regional market for access to the tuna fishery.
The need to regulate effort in the region
Overcapacity and excessive fishing effort are key issues to be addressed in all regions, and the Western and Central Pacific is no exception. In this regard, the EU should actively support current regional efforts to address overcapacity and limit fishing effort. Access based on either tonnage caught or vessel numbers does not adequately reflect total fishing effort, particularly of the EU fleet which comprises very large vessels. In that respect, a well-defined and enforced vessel day scheme would have the potential to provide the means to prevent further increases in effort in the region.
The VDS should provide for an adequate weighting to reflect the size of the vessels involved. As EU purse seiners are amongst the largest in the world they would have to adjust their vessel days by a multiplying factor. If such weighting factor is considered, the price of access currently paid by EU vessels would have to increase to reflect their high catching power.
Kiribati's lack of compliance with PNA rules on VDS
In 2012 Kiribati exceeded its allocated days under the VDS by almost 80%.[8] Those days, under VDS rule, should have been purchased from other PNA parties, which would then have been able to obtain revenue in their turn. This was not done. Fishing by EU vessels in Kiribati waters has certainly contributed to Kiribati exceeding its allocation of days under the PNA and the fact that the EU fleet is not coming under the VDS greatly complicates the management of fishing activities in the Kiribati EEZ.
EU's lack of compliance with WCPFC effort limits on the high seas
While the EU Commission has blamed the PNA for lack of transparency and having exceeded the applicable fishing effort limits, it should be noted that the EU has also failed to comply with WCPFC rules to limit fishing effort. As it can be seen in table 2 the EU purse seine fleet broke the high seas effort limits established through CMM 2008-01 consistently from 2007 to 2011.
Impact of the EU Purse Seine fleet on tuna resources in the region
Despite having only four vessels currently operating in the WCPO, the impact of EU catches cannot be considered negligible. EU purse seiners are amongst the biggest and most powerful purse seiners in the world and they are highly dependent on drifting FADs (see table 3). Their operations result in significant catches of juvenile bigeye tuna. The most recent stock assessments conducted by the WCPFC Scientific Committee in 2012 indicate overfishing of bigeye tuna.
The EU flagged purse seine fleet, with only four vessels, accounted for 15.5% of the bigeye tuna caught by all the purse seiners operating in the WCPO in 2010. There are significant concerns about the catches of silky sharks in purse seine fisheries associated to FADs. These figures are in sharp contrast with EU claims of leading attempts to manage the impacts of FADs in tuna RFMOs and the protocol fails to incorporate measures to decrease the impacts of the use of FADs.[9]
Conclusion: building the basis for a positive involvement of the EU in the Western Pacific
The Western and Central Pacific Ocean account for almost 60% of the world's tuna catches. Sound fisheries management in this region has therefore global relevance. As an active fishing player and a prominent market, the EU cannot afford to undermine its position by ignoring relevant arrangements in the region such as the PNA, in particular its VDS, which has been incorporated into the WCPFC.
It appears that the EU-Kiribati agreement is the only bilateral agreement in the region that is not based on the VDS. The multilateral access agreement with the US has also been based on the VDS as of 15 June 2013. Finally, the EU’s agreements with the Solomon Islands and the Federate States of Micronesia never entered into force since they failed to incorporate the VDS.
This rapporteur regrets that bilateral negotiations outside a well-established regional framework may result in benefits for a few ship-owners, while undermining regional efforts to improve the management of tuna fisheries as well as the benefits derived by SIDS from the fishery. This rapporteur wishes to encourage the Commission to make every effort possible to cooperate with the region to improve the VDS in order to ensure that fishing effort in the region stays within sustainable limits and coordinate efforts in order to achieve better control and facilitate the implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement in the region.
The failure to base the protocol on the VDS appears to be a serious breach of the rules of the WCPFC, the relevant RFMO. In addition, it distorts the market for access rights and potentially deprives both Kiribati and the region of much-needed revenue[10]. The European Commission maintains that the VDS suffers many defects, not least its alleged lack of transparency. However, it would be far preferable for the EU to attempt to improve the VDS as a party to it, rather than hammering it from outside, where it is vulnerable to the criticism of failure to apply the internationally agreed norms.
This rapporteur recommends that this protocol be rejected and that the Commission negotiates a new protocol which fully respects the provisions of the WCPFC and the PNA, of which Kiribati is a party.
ANNEX
Tables
Table 1. Payments made to Kiribati per day 2007-2011 |
|||||||
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
Average |
|
Tonnes caught |
8,671 |
12,269 |
10,625 |
12,268 |
13,247 |
11,416 |
|
Days in Kiribati |
90 |
269 |
460 |
350 |
278 |
309 |
|
Tonnes per day |
96 |
46 |
23 |
35 |
35 |
47 |
|
Total payment/day (€) |
10,461 |
4,802 |
2,451 |
3,690 |
3,677 |
5,016 |
|
Adjusted days (1.5) |
135 |
404 |
690 |
525 |
567 |
464 |
|
Total payment/adjusted day (€) |
6,989 |
3,206 |
1,637 |
2,464 |
2,455 |
3,350 |
|
Total payment/adjusted day ($) |
9,435 |
5,066 |
2,308 |
3,006 |
3,559 |
4,675 |
|
Table 2. Purse seine days fished in international waters 20º N – 20º S |
|||||||||
Flag |
CMM 2006-01 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
|
China |
420 |
508 |
232 |
334 |
261 |
1000 |
13 |
9 |
|
Chinese Taipei |
1,913 |
1,262 |
1,244 |
1,506 |
1,341 |
1,365 |
96 |
76 |
|
Ecuador |
0 |
0 |
0 |
49 |
150 |
39 |
53 |
37 |
|
El Salvador |
14 |
0 |
0 |
104 |
130 |
97 |
63 |
52 |
|
European Union |
103 |
30 |
315 |
173 |
311 |
241 |
366 |
339 |
|
FSM |
387 |
222 |
86 |
168 |
123 |
334 |
6 |
3 |
|
Indonesia |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
|
Japan |
1,859 |
1,768 |
1,493 |
1,209 |
1,704 |
2,080 |
111 |
67 |
|
Kiribati |
42 |
46 |
53 |
22 |
19 |
191 |
114 |
205 |
|
Marshall Islands |
400 |
402 |
158 |
155 |
290 |
168 |
71 |
32 |
|
New Zealand |
346 |
98 |
289 |
208 |
196 |
210 |
68 |
26 |
|
Papua New Guinea |
1,130 |
1,271 |
404 |
670 |
592 |
804 |
78 |
23 |
|
Philippines |
452 |
306 |
150 |
26 |
73 |
20 |
2 |
0 |
|
Republic of Korea |
1,249 |
1,082 |
742 |
1,398 |
1,513 |
1,728 |
208 |
65 |
|
Solomon Islands |
17 |
17 |
15 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Tuvalu |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
36 |
4 |
5 |
|
USA |
1,037 |
767 |
533 |
798 |
1,566 |
1,773 |
400 |
583 |
|
Vanuatu |
593 |
369 |
401 |
379 |
215 |
103 |
37 |
27 |
|
Total |
10,461 |
8,648 |
6,615 |
7,704 |
8,984 |
10,689 |
2,190 |
2,049 |
|
Table 3. Types of sets by the different purse seine fleets operating in the WCPO |
||||||
|
Free school |
Log |
Drifting FAD |
Anchored FAD |
Other |
|
Korea |
63% |
18% |
19% |
0% |
1% |
|
Taiwan |
42% |
40% |
18% |
0% |
0% |
|
Japan |
41% |
42% |
16% |
0% |
0% |
|
USA |
14% |
9% |
77% |
0% |
0% |
|
New Zealand |
27% |
4% |
69% |
0% |
0% |
|
Vanuatu |
50% |
20% |
22% |
9% |
0% |
|
China |
58% |
8% |
33% |
1% |
0% |
|
Philippines |
28% |
30% |
9% |
32% |
0% |
|
Spain (EU) |
11% |
0% |
89% |
0% |
0% |
|
Ecuador |
11% |
1% |
88% |
0% |
0% |
|
El Salvador |
13% |
0% |
87% |
0% |
0% |
|
Total DWFN |
48% |
28% |
22% |
2% |
0% |
|
FSMA and Domestic |
43% |
25% |
24% |
7% |
1% |
|
- [1] Ex-post evaluation of the current protocol to the FPA between the EU and Kiribati, and ex-ante evaluation with analysis of impacts for a future protocol. Final report. May 2012.
- [2] Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau.
- [3] CMM 2008-01, paragraphs 11 and 17; CMM 2011-01, paragraphs 1 and 2; CMM 2012-01, paragraph 12.
- [4] Article 25. Forms of cooperation with developing States, paragraph 1(a). UNFSA.
- [5] See paragraph 157 of UNGA Resolution 66/68.
- [6] “In the preparation for the negotiations, both parties expressed their initial positions on this issue. Kiribati informed the EU that they will base their approach on the Vessel Days Scheme.” Agreed records of the Joint Committee meeting on the Implementation of the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement EU/Kiribati. Nadi, Fiji, 30 May 2012.
- [7] Ex-post evaluation of the current protocol to the FPA between the EU and Kiribati, and ex-ante evaluation with analysis of impacts for a future protocol. Final report. May 2012.
- [8] According to internal documents presented at the last PNA Ministerial meeting.
- [9] “Given the high level of juvenile bigeye tuna catches taken in the FAD fishery by the EU fleet the evaluation also recommends that direct measures should be included in the protocol to mitigate against this problem.”
- [10] The European Parliament expressed its wish that bilateral fisheries agreements should ensure that EU shipowners pay a fair and market-based portion of the costs when acquiring access rights. Paragraph 43, Report on the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy. September 2012.
OPINION of the Committee on Development (25.6.2013)
for the Committee on Fisheries
on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community, on the one hand, and the Republic of Kiribati, on the other
(13331/2012 – C7‑0036/2013 – 2012/0229(NLE))
Izvjestitelj: Norbert Neuser
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Kiribati is a remote Pacific nation made up of 33 widely dispersed islands (21 inhabited). While the total land area is only 726 km2, the related exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is the largest EEZ of the Pacific islands countries.
Kiribati is a democratic republic; its economy faces significant constraints common to other islands atoll states. Its GDP is expanding by an estimated 2-3% per annum. GDP per capita is on of the lowest of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) nations at 1,047 euros, and Kiribati is classified as a least developed ACP state. Challenges to economic development include size, remoteness and geographical fragmentation, infertile soils, limited exploitable resources and an expanding population. Kiribati's Development Plan 2008-2011 focused on improving the economic environment in the outer islands, strengthening access to health services and addressing climate change.
Kiribati relies heavily on licence fees from distant water fishing nations that provide 23-30% of government revenue and remittances from Kiribati citizens employed abroad, mainly as seafarers. Fishing is also an important subsistence activity, with over 80% of households involved in fishing. The fishing sector contributes around 10% to GDP.
While Kiribati benefits from regional development initiatives, fisheries remain outside the 10th EDF Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme for Kiribati. Fisheries-specific support is instead provided through the sectoral policy support component of the fisheries partnership agreement in force. While there is presently no trade in fishery products between Kiribati and the EU, the country has future aspirations in trading fresh tuna loins.
Assessment of the proposal for a new Protocol
The main features of the proposed new Protocol go along the lines of the expired 2007-2012 Protocol. The ex-post assessment commissioned by the Commission to an external contractor shows the strengths and weaknesses of the previous protocol and is therefore useful to assess the current proposal.
As regards fishing possibilities, the proposed protocol provides for 4 purse seine and 6 long-line fishing authorisations. The annual amount for the access to Kiribati EEZ is set at EUR 975 000 equivalent to a reference tonnage of 15 000 tonnes of tuna per year. An amount of EUR 350 000 is allocated for sectoral fisheries policy.
The annual amount paid by the EU (thus excluding additional fees paid by the shipowners) for the access to Kiribati EEZ remains stable at EUR 65 per tonne, but the amount allocated for the sectoral fisheries policy almost double, from EUR 62 400 a year in the previous protocol to EUR 116 666 a year in the proposed one.
The ex-post assessment shows some areas of concern of the previous protocol, including: the failure of the Joint Committee meetings to take place until 2011; the slow payments in recent years for the financial support for the sectoral policy; the failure by Kiribati to supply inspection certificates and observer reports to shipowners; and the lack of any real impetus towards joint enterprises or local landings for processing.
The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA)
Your rapporteur is deeply concerned about the non-respect of the proposed Protocol with some provisions in the PNA, which is a binding regional agreement signed by eight developing Pacific island countries, including Kiribati, with the main objective of coordinating and harmonising the management of their fisheries, upon which they are highly dependent.
The PNA has agreed to several implementing protocols and arrangements which lay out agreed conditions to be applied to all foreign fishing vessels fishing in the EEZs of PNA members. These include conditions such as catch retention provisions, FAD closures, 100% observer coverage, or the mandatory use of the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS), an effort management mechanism developed by the parties. The VDS provides for Party Allowable Effort days allocated to PNA countries, and agreed that a minimum fee of US$ 5000 per fishing day that shall be applied to foreign fishing vessels from 2012 onwards.
The fact that the protocol agreed between the EU and Kiribati does not comply with the VDS is causing important tensions, both between the EU and some Pacific island countries and between Kiribati and the other Pacific island countries, with the latter voicing concerns about the EU acting in bad faith and breaking regional solidarity.
Your rapporteur is of the view that Pacific island countries' cooperation in the management of the tuna fisheries taking place in their waters must be encouraged and not undermined. Tuna is almost the only resource these islands economies benefit from. For this reason, the joint management and conservation of tuna resources is of paramount importance to their very survival. This implies that fisheries agreements signed by third countries, including the EU, with these countries should fully respect the provisions of regional and sub-regional agreements and arrangements.
By signing the proposed protocol with the EU, Kiribati would be infringing the PNA. At the same time, the EU might be acting against the principles of policy coherence for development and undermining its own credibility as a cooperation actor in the whole region by not ensuring that its fisheries policies are consistent with those agreed by the signatories of the PNA, thus sapping regional integration.
Therefore, your rapporteur proposes that Parliament decline to give its consent to the conclusion of this Protocol. He calls on the Commission to re-negotiate the Protocol incorporating the provisions of any regional and sub-regional agreement or arrangement binding on Kiribati.
******
The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on Fisheries, as the committee responsible, to propose that Parliament decline to give its consent.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
Date adopted |
24.6.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
16 5 0 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Thijs Berman, Michael Cashman, Leonidas Donskis, Charles Goerens, Catherine Grèze, Mikael Gustafsson, Eva Joly, Michał Tomasz Kamiński, Norbert Neuser, Bill Newton Dunn, Maurice Ponga, Jean Roatta, Keith Taylor, Patrice Tirolien, Anna Záborská |
||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Kriton Arsenis, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Fiona Hall, Edvard Kožušník, Krzysztof Lisek, Csaba Őry, Patrizia Toia |
||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote |
Luigi Berlinguer |
||||
OPINION of the Committee on Budgets (23.1.2013)
for the Committee on Fisheries
on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Kiribati, setting out opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community, on the one hand, and the Republic of Kiribati, on the other
(COM(2012)0468 – C7 0000/2012– 2012/0229(NLE))
Rapporteur: François Alfonsi
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
On the basis of relevant Council mandate, the Commission on behalf of the European Union negotiated with the Republic of Kiribati in view of renewing the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Kiribati. Following these negotiations, a new Protocol was initialled on 3 June 2012, which covers a period of three years starting from 16 September 2012.
Under Articles 43(2) and 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament can either consent or decline to consent.
The new Protocol is in line with the objectives of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement aiming at strengthening the cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of Kiribati and promoting a partnership framework in which to develop a sustainable fisheries policy and responsible exploitation of fishery resources in the Kiribati's EEZ in the interests of both Parties.
The two Parties have agreed to cooperate with a view to implementing Kiribati's sectoral fisheries policy and to that end shall continue the policy dialogue on the relevant programming.
The new Protocol provides for a total financial contribution of EUR 4.428.000 which amounts to EUR 1.456.000 and EUR 1.516.000 respectively per year for the whole period. This amount corresponds to: a) EUR 975.000 per year for the access to the Kiribati's EEZ, and b) EUR 350.000 per year, corresponding to the additional envelop paid by the EU to support of Kiribati's fisheries policy.
Type of expenditure |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
TOTAL |
|
Preservation and management of natural resources |
1 325 000€ |
1 325 000€ |
1 325 000€ |
3 975 000€ |
|
Administrative expenditure |
131 000€ |
131 000€ |
191 000€ |
453 000€ |
|
TOTAL |
1 456 000€ |
1 456 000€ |
1 516 000€ |
4 428 000€ |
|
*******
The Committee on Budgets reiterates its earlier calls for the Commission to:
· check every year whether Member States whose vessels operate under the Protocol to the Agreement have complied with reporting requirements. Where this is not the case, the Commission should refuse to grant their requests for fishing licences for the following year;
· report annually to Parliament and the Council on the results of the multiannual sectoral programme described in Article 7 of the Protocol, as well as on compliance by the Member States with reporting requirements;
· submit, before the Protocol expires or before negotiations for its possible replacement begin, to Parliament and the Council an ex post evaluation of the Protocol, including a cost-benefit analysis.
*****
The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Fisheries, as the committee responsible, to propose that Parliament gives its consent.
REZULTAT KONAČNOG GLASOVANJA U ODBORU
Datum usvajanja |
23.1.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Rezultat konačnog glasovanja |
+: –: 0: |
31 2 0 |
|||
Zastupnici nazočni na konačnom glasovanju |
Marta Andreasen, Zuzana Brzobohatá, Jean-Luc Dehaene, José Manuel Fernandes, Eider Gardiazábal Rubial, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Ingeborg Gräßle, Lucas Hartong, Monika Hohlmeier, Anne E. Jensen, Ivailo Kalfin, Sergej Kozlík, Jan Kozłowski, Alain Lamassoure, Giovanni La Via, Claudio Morganti, Jan Mulder, Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar, Nadezhda Neynsky, Dominique Riquet, Potito Salatto, Alda Sousa, László Surján, Derek Vaughan, Angelika Werthmann |
||||
Zamjenici nazočni na konačnom glasovanju |
François Alfonsi, Edit Herczog, Paul Rübig, Peter Šťastný, Georgios Stavrakakis, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan, Gianluca Susta, Nils Torvalds |
||||
REZULTAT KONAČNOG GLASOVANJA U ODBORU
Datum usvajanja |
17.10.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Rezultat konačnog glasovanja |
+: –: 0: |
18 3 0 |
|||
Zastupnici nazočni na konačnom glasovanju |
Kriton Arsenis, Chris Davies, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo, Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, Iliana Malinova Iotova, Werner Kuhn, Isabella Lövin, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Guido Milana, Crescenzio Rivellini, Ulrike Rodust, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Struan Stevenson, Isabelle Thomas, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa |
||||
Zamjenici nazočni na konačnom glasovanju |
Jim Higgins, Antolín Sánchez Presedo |
||||
Zamjenici nazočni na konačnom glasovanju prema čl. 187. st. 2. |
Maria Da Graça Carvalho, María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora, George Lyon, Francisco José Millán Mon, Bart Staes |
||||