Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-02-Speech-4-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991202.3.4-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, thank you for having invited me today to speak about the two Commission proposals. As you know, my colleague, Mr Fischler, is at the moment in Seattle and he has asked me to take his place.
As far as the processing industry is concerned, the situation regarding trade with third countries is of prime importance. Our processing industry should be able to supply itself with raw materials at world market prices in order to be competitive. Failing this, we risk exporting jobs outside the Community to countries that can easily obtain staple commodities at competitive prices. There are greatly differing views on the form of tariff duties to be applied to the majority of the vulnerable species: cuts of tuna, herring and cod.
I accept that there is no easy answer. However, the recommendation by Parliament on laying down criteria applicable to future suspensions, instead of a decision on tariff suspensions in the context of the common organisation of the market, does not resolve the problem. We should henceforth create a more stable situation for the processing industry. In its approach, the Commission mainly applies the criterion according to which imported products should be raw materials intended for the processing industry for which the volume of Community production is inadequate. It is clear that the prospects of the supply of white fish in the short and long term are worrying and the Community cannot allow itself to penalise its processing industry and leave third countries to create the added value provided by the industry.
To conclude on this first proposal, Madam President, the studies by the European Parliament and the Commission agree on some key points of the reform, particularly on the need to strengthen the role of the producers’ organisations in the fisheries sector and in aquaculture and to improve the information provided to the consumer. As far as intervention is concerned, the Commission cannot go as far as the European Parliament would like in relaxing the new discipline in respect of withdrawals, as it considers that this position is essential in the context of our efforts to conserve resources.
As far as trade with third countries is concerned, where we have a different approach to that of the European Parliament, the Commission is of the opinion that there is a considerable structural problem within the European market that justifies immediate action to save jobs in the processing sector.
I should now like, Madam President, to examine the second proposal by the Commission and, with this in mind, to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gallagher.
This proposal amends Regulation EC/850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the third time and this amendment aims to improve the conservation of fishing resources through technical measures for the improved protection of juveniles of marine organisms. The mechanism proposed is based on a number of new elements that the Commission was only able to set down after the adoption of this Regulation. This mechanism will strengthen the protection of adult and juvenile herring, while improving the protection of marine mammals. The Commission proposal is supported by the competent scientific organisations like the International Commission for Marine Exploration and the Fisheries Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee. The Commission is very pleased that the Committee on Fisheries has adopted the report by Mr Gallagher which approves the Commission’s proposal.
We are dealing first of all with the reform of the common organisation of the market in the fisheries and aquaculture products sector. The Commission is very pleased with the report by the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries and particularly with the detailed study undertaken by the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, who has made a valuable contribution to the debate.
The work of this Committee, that met for the last time on this subject on the same day as the Fisheries Council on 22 November, directly contributed to the discussions of the Council in this field. As you already know, the Council reached a broad consensus. Mr Fischler has only accepted this consensus provisionally. He told the ministers that he could only give his agreement to a final decision after having considered the opinion of the European Parliament.
I have listened with interest to the speakers today and I believe that they clearly illustrate the diversity of the fisheries market throughout the Union and therefore emphasise the need for us to take account of these factors. We now need to examine the proposal and the opinion by Parliament from the point of view of their effect on all interested parties and not only on producers. I should like to stress that it is important for this reform to apply to the whole fisheries chain and, consequently, for it to encourage integration in the market. The main development of the Commission proposal is the fact that the common organisation of the market will henceforth cover consumers and the whole of the fisheries industry. This Commission proposal is good for consumers, good for producers and good for the processing industry and I shall tell you why.
As far as consumers are concerned, the Commission proposal stipulates that essential information must be provided on the product. The consumer will know what type of fish he is buying, how it has been produced and where it comes from. In view of the importance of traceability, in all its aspects, in the food sector, and particularly from the point of view of food safety, these provisions will reassure consumers and allow them to be better informed when making purchasing decisions. I am very pleased to note, Madam President, that the European Parliament is in agreement on this point. However, the origin of the fishing boat does not concern the consumers directly and the fact that it is mentioned could be perceived as distorting trade with third countries.
As far as producers are concerned, the Commission proposal aims to redirect the incentives of the common organisation of the market in order to encourage improved supply planning. The Commission has strengthened the role of the producers’ organisations by proposing a new mechanism that encourages the producers to plan their activities in order to improve the balance between supply and demand. Improved planning should lead to a reduction in withdrawals and thus make it possible to avoid waste.
The Commission can accept the general impetus of Parliament’s amendment in this field concerning the incorporation of the producer organisations of certain aquaculture species in the scope of the operational programmes. We also acknowledge that some of the advantages of improved planning can also apply to the aquaculture sector. If we subscribe to the idea of financial support in favour of these programmes, we feel that this support should be granted on a temporary basis and should not be linked to the value of the production owing to difficulties that may arise under the rules of international trade.
The second aspect of the amendments that will affect producers concerns the level of Community support in the form of interventions. The Commission considers that a high level of withdrawals is not justified in view of the rarity of the fishery resources, both inside and outside Community waters. If we are endeavouring to arrive at sustainability in the fisheries sector, we should not be encouraging the destruction of our resources. Intervention should become a safety net for fishermen, that would only be used on rare occasions. The Commission is of the opinion that we should reduce as far as possible the permanent withdrawals and move to support which is in favour of more active fishermen’s organisations that are better suited to the needs of the market.
The amendments by the European Parliament in this sphere argue in favour of a less radical reduction of the quantities eligible for support and of the financial aid for withdrawal, which is along the same lines as the consensus emerging between the Member States within the Council. The Commission will therefore not stand in the way of an agreement but would be reluctant to accept all the proposed increases relating to intervention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples