Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.5.3-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you for the very extensive debate we have had here. May I say to everyone who referred to the shipwreck of the
that perhaps it was not perfectly clear from my first speech that we, by which I mean the services responsible for shipping in the transport DG under Mrs Loyola de Palacio, the environmental experts under Mrs Margot Wallström, the Structural Fund experts and my experts, have joined in setting up a task force. All these experts have been in Galicia for some time now and have been looking at ideas
together with the agencies responsible, as to how we can best help here.
And so to fleet policy. I am delighted that the rapporteur agrees in general with our proposals and I welcome these amendments. I accept Amendment No 44, although we must comply with Community provisions governing data protection. I also accept Amendment No 78. However, I must reject Amendments Nos 7, 26, 34 and 39 to 43, because they add nothing new of substance and create a whole host of practical problems.
Now for your proposed amendments to the chapter on controls. I am delighted that many here are in favour of stepping up controls and the implementation of a common fisheries policy and gladly accept Amendments Nos 51, 57 and 61. However, I should like to accept Amendments Nos 51 and 57 in a slightly different form. I cannot accept Amendments Nos 52 to 56 or 62. Nor can I accept Amendment No 12, because we need effective tools if those who break the rules are to be held liable for the damage they cause. And that includes quota reductions.
Now to decision-making procedures and consultations. I must reject Amendments Nos 21, 37, 65, 66, 80, 84 and 86 to 89 for the sake of institutional equilibrium, although I gladly accept your Amendment No 64 and part of Amendment No 85 to do with regional consultative committees and the demand that they should also be set up in third countries. Finally, I am unfortunately unable to accept your Amendment No 69, because the basic principles will be included in our new framework regulation in the future.
Now to the proposed amendments in Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna's two reports. First, I have made the Commission's standpoint on this quite clear. I must say, to my great disappointment, that many of the proposed amendments are designed merely to maintain the status quo. I find that unacceptable and must therefore reject the proposed amendments which refer to it. I am convinced that it makes no sense to hand out money for scrapping with one hand and to finance new ships with the other, because all that does is to put more pressure on endangered stocks and subsidise this absurd state of affairs out of taxpayers' money.
Nor do I agree with you on exports or joint ventures. These mechanisms do nothing to reduce excess capacity in our waters because most of the vessels which receive public aid for joint ventures or export were already fishing in third countries. However, I can accept Amendment No 3 on the possibility of adapting programme planning during the current Structural Fund period. I can only accept the part of Amendments Nos 19 and 37 designed to promote the diversification of vessels out of fisheries. Finally, I think that Amendment No 27 is superfluous.
Now to the final proposal on scrapping. Unfortunately, I must reject Amendments Nos 2 and 9, because if we ask the taxpayer to fund the scrapping of vessels out of additional public money, then it is only logical that we re-programme public aid for fleet renewal at the same time. As far as Amendments Nos 3 to 6 and 8 are concerned, here too I must beg to differ. Scientists have been telling us for years that our fleet is far too big and that stocks are depleting under the tremendous pressure from fisheries. Our scientists have repeatedly concluded that TACs and quotas and technical measures alone are not enough. As far as additional funds for scrapping are concerned, we have drawn up calculations based on empirical values. Of course they are only estimates, but the majority of Member States see them as an upper limit, which is why I cannot agree with Amendments Nos 3 to 6 and 8.
Nor can I accept Amendment No 7, because the Commission has indeed honoured its obligations by instituting infringement proceedings against Member States who fail to achieve their fleet targets. As for Amendment No 10, the point here is that Member States must meet all the conditions of MAP 4, that is, overall fleet targets and individual targets, if they want to claim additional scrapping premiums. Anything else would put Member States who have achieved their overall fleet target at a disadvantage.
As far as direct responsibility for fisheries is concerned, as you know, the current rules only allow 4% of total structural resources for fisheries to be used for compensation following a disaster. I have said that this is too little. We need to do more here and I am in the process of doing something about this. I shall be bending the rules as far as I possibly can without actually breaking them. We are also prepared to look, with the Spanish Government, at how we can put structural resources for fisheries to the best possible use here. We want the compensation ruling to be flexible enough to include joint activities undertaken by groups or organisations in the fisheries sector.
We really cannot completely ignore the polluter pays principle here but, as you know, there is a sort of solidarity over and above that, in the form of a fund of EUR 300 million, which the Commission has been demanding to see increased to EUR 1 billion for some time now – for several months in fact. It is not up to the Commission to take the decisions here; this is a decision for the Council.
Now to the cod plan and the oral question. I really must categorically reject what Mr Stevenson said about everything being based on out-of-date data and hence not being very relevant. These are the latest data available and the evaluations were not carried out by just any scientists; they were carried out by scientists from all the Member States who worked as a group, were paid by the Member States and had to reach a common verdict. To say this was an academic exercise which, if you want, you can ignore, is totally uncalled for.
For the most part, catch data for 2001 were used. If 2001 brought about such dramatic results, then it is obvious from stock patterns that 2002 will bring about even more dramatic results. If you believe these fish have all moved to Iceland, you are deluding yourself! Why is the situation in Iceland better? Because the Icelanders introduced a multiannual cod management plan years ago. It is we who need to catch up, not the other way round. And we need to stick to the facts if we want to make any headway here.
Now to the reports. I should like to comment mainly on the proposed amendments. First to Mr Jové Peres's report and stock management. I am more than happy to accept Amendments Nos 4, 14, 27 and 30, because the Commission too feels that fisheries management should include social and economic aspects. However, I must reject Amendment No 2, because economic considerations cannot be used as an excuse for watering down the measures needed. I must also reject Amendments Nos 24, 31 and 99, because our wording for the precautionary principle is in keeping with international maritime law and cannot therefore be watered down.
Amendments Nos 19 and 50 do not pose any substantive problems; however, the precautionary principle already takes account of environmental considerations per se and I therefore feel that these amendments are superfluous. However, I welcome your support for multiannual management plans, Mr Jové Peres, and gladly accept Amendments Nos 1, 3, 6, 29 and 32. I cannot accept Amendments Nos 35 and 36 because it is up to the Council to set the framework for management plans. However, I gladly accept Amendment No 22 on international guidelines for sustainable fisheries management. I must reject Amendments Nos 67 and 68, although I agree that we urgently need better scientific data on third country stocks and we shall be sending Parliament a separate communication on this in the spring of 2003.
Now to access to waters and stocks. I gladly accept Amendments Nos 8 and 46, but I must reject Amendments Nos 70 to 74 and 94, because I think we need to keep the twelve-mile zone. I must also reject Amendment No 45, because we shall be examining access restrictions such as the Shetland Box in 2003. I must reject Amendments Nos 9, 47, 95 and 97 on a 50-nautical-mile economic zone for the outermost regions as they stand, because this is a matter of national law. I reject the proposed amendments on relative stability because I think that relative stability is part and parcel of our common fisheries policy.
I can accept Amendments Nos 28 and 76 but I must reject Amendment No 11, because both the Commission and the Council legal services are of the unanimous opinion that the system for western waters needs to be changed and that these Member States should be treated on a equal footing with other Member States when it comes to the fishing effort planned for this zone."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples