Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-27-Speech-3-326"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060927.25.3-326"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I am indebted to the Commissioner for starting this debate on a good note, for I notice that he is meeting Parliament half-way on a number of issues. Whilst I share his concern with regard to the development of the plaice and sole stocks in the North Sea, it is at the same time becoming clear that this is not related to the fishing effort, but may be attributable to climate changes that cannot always be fully explained. To make it absolutely clear, though, I do share his concern in this respect. I am pleased that he is nevertheless moving towards Parliament in a number of areas.
I should once again like to express my thanks to the Commissioner for meeting us half-way on a number of issues. Parliament’s position will be apparent in tomorrow’s vote. I am firmly convinced that the Commissioner will place Parliament’s contribution at the heart of the Council’s discussion.
One important point of criticism that I made with regard to the Commission’s working method was that the proposal was tabled before the North Sea Regional Advisory Council had issued its recommendation. That does not strike me as going about things the right way. It appears to me essential that, if we want to retain a support base for fisheries, we should accord these Regional Advisory Councils a fully-fledged place in the debate and that we get them to make a contribution prior to the debate as well. I am saying this emphatically because those Regional Advisory Councils not only involve fisheries organisations, but also the Word Nature Fund and other nature organisations. That is precisely the sort of thing that injects stability and provides a support base for policy in a certain region.
With regard to the application of the objectives for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), I am pleased that the Commission has just now issued the communication on that subject which was still missing prior to the management plan for sole and plaice, although it had, in fact, already presented the MSY objectives. My criticism is mainly to do with the fact that that did happen for sole and plaice, but not for a number of other management plans, for example the Gulf of Biscay.
It also strikes me as the right way of doing things if we in this House have a fundamental discussion about the application of the MSY objectives before these are introduced for a certain fish species. I welcome the fact that the Commissioner is taking a few steps in the right direction, but there may need to be more consultation in a number of other areas. I also hope that the Council will as yet move a little closer in the direction of Parliament to ensure that we in any event end up with a balanced approach.
The Commissioner has stated that the establishment of three-year quotas is a problem for him after all, because they do not allow any
adjustments. I would question that, also because sole and plaice fisheries may well be the best controlled fisheries in Europe, and also on the basis of the way in which the fisheries organisations use these. I would draw your attention to, among others, the producer organisations in a number of ports that work closely together and where there is excellent cooperation between the Member States, the authorities, the inspectorates and the fisheries organisations themselves. It would, in fact, be appealing, also for the European Commission, in time, to switch to a three-year Total Allowable Catches (TAC) scheme after all.
I may be prejudging the discussion on the communication about the Commission’s MSY objectives, but the point that is essential in my view is that Regional Advisory Councils will be given a dominant role in Europe's decision-making, that they, every time the Commission tables a proposal, will be given a hearing beforehand, and that their opinion will be taken into consideration in the argumentation of the proposals.
After all, we will increasingly have discussions in Europe, also within fisheries, in which, seemingly, a large number of Member States take hardly any interest. Indeed, the number of Member States is no longer 6 or 15, but 25. And how could a Hungarian Fisheries Minister contribute to a discussion, say, about shrimps in the North Sea or a Dutch Fisheries Minister about fisheries around Cyprus?
There are, of course, general policy lines, but in order to keep a support base for fisheries, it is essential for these Regional Advisory Councils to be accorded an important role, also in future, also in the implementation of the plans. That is why this point receives a great deal of attention in my report too. It can provide a support base for the fisheries decisions.
Even more important, however, is the following. We are often in a fix with scientific recommendations for the establishment of quotas and subsequently – let us be honest about this – find out that the Council plays under one hat. That is why scientific recommendations are drafted conservatively to take the Council’s outcome into consideration. We must put a stop to this! We must ensure that the sector and scientific institutions cooperate much quicker and at a much earlier stage in order to weigh up the plans effectively."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples