Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-309"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.12.2-309"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, on behalf of the Commission, I should first like to thank all the rapporteurs, the Committee on Fisheries and the other committees involved for their comprehensive work in the run up to today's debate. I should also like to extend special thanks to the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries, Mr Varela, for coordinating all the work and for his interesting own-initiative report.
The Commission therefore agrees to the motions for resolutions on several points. However, it has the impression, as regards the delicate question of the 6/12-mile zone, that the majority of those affected are in favour of maintaining the
.
The Commission will publish its Green Paper in a few weeks' time, together with the reports under Article 14 paragraph 2 of Regulation 3760. We must use the ensuing debate to discuss how to rectify the shortcomings identified in the reports and suitable solutions for doing so in order to put the fisheries sector in the Community back on a viable basis.
On the evidence of the motions for resolutions, the main objectives of the reform process identified by all three rapporteurs are as follows: to reduce excess capacity and improve coherence with environmental policy measures in order to maintain and re-establish stocks; to ensure that the people directly affected are more closely involved in decision making and to resolve local or urgent problems more efficiently in order to ensure that the rules are adhered to and applied and fisheries management is improved overall – in other words, everything which qualifies as good governance. Then, to create a fisheries sector which is both sustainable and economically viable and internationally competitive – while at the same time helping those who are forced to look elsewhere for work; to develop a modern foreign fisheries policy which is closely coordinated with other Community policies in order to achieve responsible and rational use of resources, and, most importantly, to redevelop the Mediterranean dimension.
This brings me to Mr Cunha's report on Guinea-Bissau. This resolution will guarantee the activities of the Community fleet in question, while at the same time supporting the local sector. I am delighted that the rapporteur supports our proposal. The sum of EUR 6.5 million now released will be used specifically to restore the fisheries-related installations which suffered serious damage during the armed conflict in Guinea-Bissau. This will help the Community fleet to make better use of the agreement.
In detail, we want to support the following activities: reconstruction of the infrastructure, controls on and monitoring of the fleet and new research programmes. I should like to make a few comments here on the terms of payment: a tranche of 50% of the overall amount will be paid out first, as soon as the government has submitted an action programme. The remainder, in other words the second half, will be paid out once Guinea-Bissau has filed a detailed report on the implementation of individual activities under the action programme and the use of the funds earmarked for them.
Finally, a brief word on the proposed amendments. Proposed Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 extend the deadline for implementing the activities required to 2003. I think this proposed amendment is both reasonable and justified and the Commission can therefore support it. We fully share the concern expressed in proposed Amendment No 4 but, as we already inform the budgetary authority of all financial and budgetary transactions under the terms of our Interinstitutional Agreement, proposed Amendment No 4 is in fact superfluous.
As far as the contributions to the debate on the current state of negotiations with Morocco are concerned, I should like to thank Parliament for its obvious confidence in the Commission's work. I have to tell you that the agreement ceased
to apply 14 months ago, and that the Moroccan side was, unfortunately, not prepared to enter into serious negotiation on a new agreement until the end of October last year, in other words, just three and a half months ago. We did, however, make good use of the time up to Christmas, with one technical discussion a week in either Brussels or Rabat. Negotiations were held practically every day in Rabat between 2 January and 9 January. We really have done our utmost here. For the rest, it is wrong to say that we have received no support from the Council. Both the main countries affected and the presidency have supported us in our efforts and I think that, at the end of the day, the meeting between the King of Morocco and our Commission President was a useful one. I hope that negotiations will again get properly under way, and that hopefully we shall soon be on the home straight.
Mr Varela, you make it quite plain in your report that it is impossible to discuss the future of the common fisheries policy without taking account of the broader economy surrounding fisheries. Like every other economic activity, fisheries are affected by globalisation. I fully endorse much of what you say in your report and in the resolution attached to it. You highlight the fact that European fishing is committed to the principle of multifunctionality, i.e. the principle of a sustainable fisheries economy which preserves fish stocks and protects the marine environment and makes an important contribution to the economic and social structures of coastal areas engaged in fishing.
I particularly welcome your support in the fight against illegal and irresponsible fishing. We shall have an opportunity to discuss Community solutions to this burning issue. But I can already see that you, too, are in favour of a more resolute approach here.
I think that we need further discussion on three points in the report. First, the report shows a certain tendency towards more protection from international competition on the grounds that fisheries provide a great many jobs in certain coastal areas. That is certainly true, but if we unilaterally insist that jobs must be safeguarded solely with the help of the fisheries policy, without taking overall local conditions in a coastal area into account, then we run the risk, under certain circumstances, of subsidising in the wrong direction. That would be counterproductive, both for fish stocks and for jobs.
Fisheries needs to stand on their own two feet. This may lead, in numerous cases, to a reduction in the
but when regions are affected by such structural adjustments, then the Community must, of course, help. The most efficient form of help we can provide is by giving young people a future and offering them alternative employment to fishing.
Secondly, I should like to comment on the WTO negotiations which you mention. As you are aware, we do not yet know if a new WTO round will even start and, if so, to what extent. But even if there is a comprehensive round, I very much doubt that the Community would be willing to accept reciprocity in fisheries on the questions at issue, such as investments or the right of establishment. Until now, only natives or nationals of an EU Member State have been allowed to invest in the fisheries sector.
Thirdly and finally, I should like to remind you that it has been accepted since the beginning of the common fisheries policy that the Community has one seat and one vote. This purely numerical disadvantage is more than offset by the advantage of having a greater say in the shaping of international fisheries policy. To summarise, Mr Varela, your report makes an important contribution to the continuing debate on the future of the common fisheries policy. The Commission will certainly take your thoughts into maximum consideration in its forthcoming Green Paper.
That brings me to the reports and motions for resolutions from Mr Gallagher and Mr Poignant. Both reports start from the same premise. The fisheries sector in the Community is under equal pressure from several quarters. Fish stocks are declining, there is excess capacity in the fleet and it is becoming more and more difficult to access third country waters. I am delighted that you basically subscribe to the analysis in the Commission report on the application of the system for fisheries in 1996-1998. It is true that some progress was made – I need only mention the flexibility in year-to-year stock management or the new TACs in the North Sea for non-regulated species or the regulation on technical measures or the introduction of the VMS – but we still have to admit that we have failed to reverse the negative trend in numerous important stocks, such as cod or hake. Both rapporteurs also highlight the following serious shortcomings, as identified in the Commission report: effort limitation has either not worked or has been unsatisfactory, the regulation on technical measures in the Mediterranean has been patchily implemented, the fourth MAGP is not nearly ambitious enough and control arrangements have not been made stricter, as we proposed in 1998.
Meetings with various representatives of the fisheries sector have also shown that we need either to improve or to overhaul numerous aspects of the fisheries policy if we are to achieve responsible, sustainable fisheries. Differences of opinion notwithstanding, the majority of those affected are agreed that we need to do more. In particular, we need stricter controls, we need better application of the rules, we need to reduce discards, we need to promote scientific research and we need to involve those affected, especially the fishermen themselves, at an earlier stage and more intensively when taking decisions on fisheries policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples