Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-17-Speech-4-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020117.2.4-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are going to vote on today is clearly not the Miguélez report. For obvious reasons: the Committee on Fisheries, by accepting the majority of the amendments to my report, and myself, by reaching a compromise on certain points with some of the Members presenting amendments, have made significant modifications to the initial text.
With regard to the fleet, the report makes its point clearly by pointing out that the Multiannual Guidance Programmes (MAGPs) have not produced the desired results, largely as a result of the lack of will of certain Member States to implement them correctly. The reduction of the fleet is a socio-economic sacrifice which, in order to be understood and accepted by the fisheries sector, must be carried out in a balanced fashion in all Member States and also receive sufficient Community financial support. The Community must continue to contribute to the modernisation of the fleet, by means of structural measures, strengthening the aspects relating to safety and living conditions on board, without this involving any increase in fishing effort. It is therefore necessary to continue with the structural aid.
With regard to inspection and control, we recognise that the operation of monitoring and control mechanisms is unsatisfactory. We believe that all the efforts aimed at conserving resources are destined for failure if we do not have a harmonised European system with a high degree of conformity within the sector. It is necessary to extend the competences of the Community inspectors and establish a single penalty system.
With regard to international relations, the Community must deal with them decisively, relating them to the European Union’s foreign policy. From the point of view of fisheries, the Union’s international relations must be seen from a primarily commercial point of view, with a view to achieving fishing opportunities for our fleet. The fisheries agreements constitute and will continue to constitute an essential element of the new CFP. To this end, it is necessary to create a uniform strategy in the reaching of international agreements, in such a way that the professionals are subject to the same conditions in terms of fishing opportunities, the payment of charges, licences and the using of surplus quotas.
The European Union’s commercial relations and policy on markets must combine the respect for the principle of Community preference with a reduction in tariffs together with the establishment of a list of sensitive products, giving the processing industry access to the supply of raw materials.
As for the social aspects, they were completely absent from the Green Paper. We ask the Commission to fully incorporate these economic and social measures, which are necessary in order to ensure the economic and social cohesion of the regions dependent on fishing. The fisheries sector is characterised by tough working conditions and a lack of collective agreements, which makes it necessary to increase social dialogue.
To end, within the time allotted to me by my group, I would like to express my regret at the elements that have been lost during these long months of parliamentary negotiation, in particular two points: a Community fleet which can operate under a single flag and a single body of Community inspectors. I regret that the European Parliament, on this occasion, is not the innovative and pioneering institution which all we Members wish it to be. In terms of fisheries we are decades behind in relation to the European project, but just as we now have euros in our pockets and our skies are watched over by Eurocontrol, sooner or later the European flag will fly on our fishing vessels.
This text is, therefore, a synthesis of the various positions held in this Parliament in relation to the reform of the CFP, and when it comes to evaluating it there will be certain people who consider that the glass is half full and others that the glass is half empty. In any event, I believe that the report contains a sufficient number of positive elements in comparison with the current CFP for me, as rapporteur, to request that this House vote in favour of it.
I must say that in the Committee on Fisheries there has been more agreement on the shortcomings of the current CFP than on identifying concrete proposals for its reform. Nevertheless, I believe that it contains sufficient positive elements to lay the foundations for a future CFP.
The greatest difficulty has been in reconciling the various interests: those of the companies, in order to allow them to be economically viable, those of the preservation of resources and social and economic measures which are able to defend an activity largely based in the least developed regions, outermost regions and Objective 1 regions. The European Commission should be able to show sufficient political intelligence to reconcile these three aspects, above all because the failure of any one of them would lead to the failure of the other two.
We are concerned about the existing contradiction between the highly critical analysis carried out by the Commission of the current CFP, which is shared by the European Parliament, and the subsequent proposals for reform, presented in the Green Paper, which are hardly innovative. The Green Paper opts for little change, or ‘more of the same’, which pleases nobody.
The report I am presenting is clear when it comes to defining the fundamental objective of the common fisheries policy: balancing the viability of a strategic European Union economic sector – which contributes to our food supply and is vital for employment and the economic and social cohesion of the outermost regions of the Union – with the maintenance of sustainable marine eco-systems.
With regard to the conservation and management of resources, the Committee on Fisheries asks for TACs to be set by means of rational and transparent measures, incorporating scientific opinions and data from the sector’s professionals, especially since they will be set on a multiannual and multi-species basis. It asks for an end to the incoherences between the current CFP and the single market, demanding that areas of restricted fishing, either closed seasons, boxes or restricted access, be based on scientific criteria for the protection of resources. In fact, as the report indicates, the current CFP entails a derogation from the principle of equal access and, in the absence of a Council decision, this derogation will end on 31 December 2002. The CFP is obliged to respect the fundamental principles contained in the Treaty, including, ladies and gentlemen, the principle of equal treatment.
Relative stability requires a new analysis, as the report states, of the communities which are highly dependent on fishing, which considers the evolution in the Community over the last 25 years. This analysis is essential to the review of the CFP.
The Committee on Fisheries has also rejected the extension of the exclusive access zone beyond the current range of 6-12 miles."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples