Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.9.3-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, during the course of 20 years, cod stocks in the North Sea have shrunk by three-quarters. At the same time, the number of cod fishermen has fallen considerably in my country. In 1980, there were still 310 cutters that fished for cod under the Dutch flag, while these days most fishermen have switched to flatfish, and there are only a handful of cutters left that fish for cod. Nonetheless, this reduction in the number of fishermen does not seem enough. The Commission is right to table proposals for multi-annual recovery programmes for cod and hake. However, in the Commission’s proposals on reform of the European fisheries policy which Commissioner Fischler presented recently, those very fish-stock related reductions are missing. The link in the case of cod and, to a lesser degree, of hake, is evident.
I share Mrs Stihler’s view completely when she states in the explanatory statement to the report that successful recovery of the stocks must be the priority. The package of measures must be effective, but must also take account of the socio-economic damage to the fisheries sector. There is no point putting the sector under pressure if the measures implemented do not have the desired effect on the stocks. This is why it is important to monitor the effectiveness of the measures. Measures must be reversed as soon as it is evident that they do not have any positive effects.
As a bad example of such a futile measure, I would remind the Commission of the cod contingency plan which it launched for the North Sea in the winter of 2000. This contingency plan, by means of which part of the North Sea was closed for fishing, had the opposite effect. In the open areas, fishing pressure rose enormously, while in the closed areas, the fish stocks were quickly caught following their re-opening. According to fisheries biologists, the closed areas did not correspond very well with the mating areas of cod. Due to the fleet concentration in the open areas, vulnerable areas are being over-fished. In my view, fishermen and biologists were right to conclude that the Commission was not so much concerned about effectiveness as it was about political viability. A repeat of this debacle and the lack of proportion must be avoided. It is unacceptable for Dutch fishermen who are allowed to catch 10% of the Total Allowed Catch, the TAC, for cod, to be far more restricted in their fishing activities than British fishermen who account for 40% of the TAC.
I will make a few observations to the measures included in the Commission proposal. First of all, the aforementioned area closures are a good example of how things should not be done. Real-time closures
closures in an area where a high concentration of young fish is found, on the other hand, can be an effective measure. Technical measures can be of particular importance for the fishermen who fish for cod as a secondary activity.
Secondly, the reduction in TAC for cod entails the risk that the fishing pressure on unquoted species will increase enormously. Pro-active policy should ensure that unquoted species are quoted as quickly as possible. This is all the more important when in 2003, Spanish and Portuguese ships will also be heading for the North Sea. If the Commission abandons TACs and quotas for these species, we can expect recovery plans for these species in ten years’ time.
Thirdly, a reduction in effort is achieved most quickly by applying the sea-days’ scheme. It is delightful to see that a system used in the Netherlands, that was always met with criticism by the Commission, is now finally being adopted by the self-same Commission. I hope that the Commission will apply this method more widely. A weekend ban, well-known in the transport world, is being recommended by Dutch fishermen.
Fourthly, the Commission should not simply leave the details of the sea-days’ scheme and the financial compensation to the Member States. This would lead to unfair competition. The Commission must prescribe reduction figures for each Member State. These figures can be based on the quota and the observed over-fishing in recent years.
Finally, we must ensure that fleets that have found a balanced relationship between effort and quotas do not undergo further re-organisation. By that, I mean that if a fleet, in the event of sound quota management, is capable of working profitably and effectively, then this should not be disturbed. It is therefore positive that subsidies for the building of new vessels will be abolished. But even when FIFG funds are used, the fishing capacity should not be maintained artificially.
It is important for the impact of the plans to be assessed in good time. It is also important that we then take account of the socio-economic damage to the sector. If the recovery plan fails, the damage to cod, hake and to fishermen will be incalculable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples