Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-083"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.5.3-083"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think we needed the
disaster or the scientific reports that we recently received from ISIS about cod and the catastrophic state of this very important species of fish to see how urgent a reform of fisheries policy is. I think everyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear must recognise that our existing fisheries policy enables us neither to guarantee our fishermen and all those families that depend on fishing a future nor to create stable conditions that will allow our fishery resources to remain available for future generations.
I can only quote them. The scientists say – they said so back in 1990 – we recommend that the fishing effort be limited because TACs alone cannot control fish mortality.
Twelve years later, ladies and gentlemen, we have still not put that recommendation into practice. Subsequently we presented the ISIS findings to our Scientific and Technical Committee on Fisheries, and it again recommended that we should adopt a recovery plan for cod as soon as possible, a plan which, apart from cutting TACs and quotas more than originally planned, must also reduce the fishing effort accordingly. In its opinion, that is the only way to do the one and avoid a moratorium.
As you know, the Commission proposed a year ago that the fishing effort be limited as part of a recovery plan for cod and hake. To this day the Council has taken no decision on it, and the situation has got worse in the meantime. Parliament, however, gave its opinion on this recovery plan on 13 June this year.
In view of this situation, the Commission has been weighing the various options that are available. We have decided against a moratorium, going instead for an improved recovery plan, precisely because we must take both the scientific findings and the difficult situation of our fishermen seriously.
Now, how is this different from last year’s plan? Firstly, in terms of catches the big reduction in the fishing effort means a total allowable catch in the North Sea for the Community and Norway of 16 800 tonnes of cod, 31 600 tonnes of haddock, 10 400 tonnes of whiting, 60 000 tonnes of plaice and 16 000 tonnes of sole. For the waters west of Scotland it means around 1 000 tonnes of cod and 7 200 tonnes of haddock, for the Irish Sea 1 200 tonnes of cod, 7 500 tonnes of haddock and 400 tonnes of whiting. Those are only some of the catches of course.
Secondly, we propose a simplified system for the fishing effort, where we want to operate the effort not for each individual ship but for a group of ships. Thirdly, we have tightened up our proposal concerning controls. Member States will have to notify the Commission of the fishing effort on a monthly basis and ships must notify the controlling authorities when they change fishing zones.
I am also willing to fund further research work to help us find even better ways to rescue this fishery. That cannot, however, mean, ladies and gentlemen, postponing the necessary measures again. Our aim is to take a decision on this improved recovery plan together with the fisheries reform in December.
What does this all mean for our fishermen? I am aware that it means great hardship at first, unfortunately, I have to say, great hardship for those concerned. I am very much aware that livelihoods are at stake here. That is why we must not abandon the fishermen in this difficult situation. We have therefore also submitted a corresponding action plan in order to cushion some of the possible negative socio-economic consequences. I would like to pick out just three of those measures.
Firstly, Member States are urged to adjust their structural programmes and provide additional resources for the fishing industry and areas dependent on fishing. Secondly, Member States can introduce targeted measures for small-scale, employment-intensive coastal fishing. They can, for example, reserve certain fishing grounds for small vessels or they can gear their programmes to the coastal fleet in order to preserve jobs in the coastal regions in particular. Thirdly, it is essential that the economies of the coastal regions be diversified.
Ladies and gentlemen, I turn now to the other topics on the agenda today, firstly and in particular Mr Jové’s report. Our proposal in this connection is a new basic regulation for the common fisheries policy as the cornerstone of the reform. The four crucial elements of this basic regulation are as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no need to over-dramatise; the situation itself is dramatic enough. I believe that makes today’s debate crucial for the future of the fishing industry. We are debating several questions and several reports at once. I would like to begin by thanking all the rapporteurs, and also the person who tabled the question, for the reports because they give us an overall view.
Firstly, we want in future to manage stocks on a multi-annual basis. Applying an annual principle to fish is not consistent with fish biology; instead, we must make the biological cycles of our fish stocks the essence of our policy. To make management consistent, for those stocks where it is sensible to do so we want to manage the fishing effort as well as TACs and quotas. Note that I say where it is sensible to do so. That means not everywhere, and it depends primarily on the state of the stocks.
Secondly, we propose a new fleet policy. The ultimate objectives of the so-called MAP4 are to be the starting point for the upper limit. This upper limit can only change in one direction, namely a reduction in fleet size. Whenever a fisherman has his ship scrapped using public funds, the upper limit is reduced by the tonnage in question. This means we also need a system to define the ratio by which new vessels can be exchanged for old ones, provided that is done with private funds.
Thirdly, we propose closer surveillance of fisheries. Member States will have to coordinate their control activities and Member States’ inspectors will be able to make controls across borders. Satellite surveillance will gradually be extended to smaller vessels, and finally there will also be greater powers for the Commission concerning controls in the Member States. Only when everyone involved can count on his neighbour being subject to precisely the same controls as he is and to the same sanctions as he is if he breaks the rules, only then will there be justice and only then will people have confidence in the system.
Fourthly, we want the fishing industry to be more closely involved in decision-making in the regional advisory councils.
Now to the Structural Funds. First, there is something I would like to make clear. It is not the case, as is repeatedly claimed, that the Commission is under a legal misapprehension because the Member States are legally entitled to continue using money from their structural funds for fleet renewal. The fact is that if the Council fails to find a compromise this December and does not reach a decision on reform, we will not be able to use any more money for fleet policy after 1 January 2003. That is the legal consequence of the Council’s decision of December last year.
This policy involves three specific measures. Firstly, we propose retaining those public aids that serve to improve safety, working conditions and hygiene on board. Secondly, we want no more aids for modernisation or the building of new ships.
In future we want these resources to benefit those who really need them; that means the fishermen, whom we must help financially so that they can diversify their activity and have a chance – if that is what they want – of getting out of fishing. In particular, this is aimed at the many fishermen who are in fact not far off retirement but are unable to retire because they still have loans outstanding with the bank, because their ships have not yet been paid for. Are we taking a social attitude if we continue to ignore that or pretend it is not a problem? I do not think so.
Thirdly, we propose that the aids paid up until now for the export of ships and for joint ventures should in future be used to reduce overcapacity. I am prepared to proceed differently for small vessels in order to help the many owners of small vessels in a different way because they are a source of much less pressure on fisheries.
This brings me to the final proposal, namely the emergency measures for scrapping. We propose setting up a scrapping fund. That is an emergency measure. It is designed not as a long-term scheme but an emergency measure and is intended to help us restore a better balance between the sizes of our fleets and the available resources. The fund will add the resources for scrapping that are yet to be reprogrammed to the resources already provided in the structural fund for fisheries. These resources and the new fund will guarantee financial support for laying up fishing vessels.
There are two main elements to this. Firstly, a 20% higher premium, but with a time limit, for ships whose days at sea are cut by at least 25% and, secondly, an additional EUR 32 million available for scrapping in the coming year. We are also willing to talk if further resources are needed to help the fishermen who want it. Then we shall also have to find a way to do it.
I would like to divide my contribution into two parts. First of all, I would like to speak mainly about the general aspects and then I would like to speak again at the end about the various tabled amendments and the Commission’s stance on those amendments.
I would, however, like to say a word about the
disaster, ladies and gentlemen. It is a complete misnomer that this ship should be called
. The consequences for fishermen, for mussel and oyster farmers, are indeed colossal and dramatic. We in the Commission are trying, with the means that are available to us, to help at least to avoid the worst and to get help to the stricken families as quickly as possible.
The Commission has therefore set up a task force. It has already been to Galicia and has spoken with the people affected on the ground and with the authorities there. We are currently working on plans for aid programmes and we are ready to use all the statutory means available to us to see that the existing instruments are applied as flexibly as possible so that we can help those affected.
I contacted the Spanish authorities myself at the very start of this disaster and I am keeping in touch with those in positions of responsibility there, and since it now appears that France, too, will be more severely affected than was previously anticipated, the same principles will of course also be applied and the same assistance made available for France.
I believe the ISIS reports were the most recent evidence of the dire straits our fishing industry is in. As you know, in October ISIS published the news that four of the Community’s cod stocks are close to collapse. One reason for this alarming state of affairs is that stocks were already low – and that does not only mean young fish; there are no longer enough adults either - another is the poor spawning last season, and another is that fish mortality is still too high.
The ISIS scientists have recommended – quite clearly and unambiguously – that in the absence of a recovery plan direct cod fishing should be discontinued for the next year in the North Sea, the Irish Sea, the waters west of Scotland, the Skagerrak and Kattegat. Fishing for haddock and whiting should also be suspended because too many cod are caught with them.
Reducing cod catches in the last few years has not been enough and unfortunately we now find that quota reductions have resulted in false returns being made and illegal fishing. The scientists have also pointed this out. It is not just an assumption by the Commission as many have claimed. The scientists have repeatedly warned that we should not only set quotas, but that we must also reduce the fishing effort so that we are able both to make better controls and to ensure that unwanted catches are not too high and that the total allowable catches are appropriate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples