Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-21-Speech-2-213"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090421.23.2-213"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur for highlighting some of the main concerns raised by the Commission’s proposal.
Finally, with regard to the controversial ‘one net’ rule, I believe that Parliament has offered the Commission a good alternative approach, indicating in which cases this may be unviable; it should, therefore, be acceptable to take more than one fishing net on board.
Hence, I hope the Commission can show sensitivity to what are clearly major concerns for the fishing industry and our own Committee on Fisheries.
One is the new tendency to regulate individual areas of issues that are pillars of the common policy. While this approach may, in theory, be understandable in the case of technical measures, we must be very careful to make sure that subsequent regional regulations are limited to aspects relating solely to the application and regulation of technical details.
I mention this because drawing up framework regulations containing minimum measures which are then followed by different laws for individual areas is, together with an increasing tendency to turn to comitology, one of the options the Commission is prepared to take if faced with the prospect of a codecision procedure on fisheries, as the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries itself freely admits in the Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.
We should also bear in mind that it is not an ordinary policy we are talking about here, but a common policy, which requires total clarity as regards what may be involved in a more or less covert handing-over of control to Member States or an excessive territorialisation of what should be common rules intended not to disrupt competition and to avoid discrimination among fleets.
Therefore, while it may be reasonable for very local species to have their minimum size regulated by regional regulations, those cases should make up the lowest number; minimum sizes in general, like measurements of nets or criteria according to which catches can be unloaded and sold, should be universal and adopted by the Council and Parliament.
Some of the main changes introduced by the Committee on Fisheries also move in that direction, trying to limit any application of the comitology procedure to details alone and insisting that the Council should have rules at its disposal in order to establish seasonal closures, net dimensions and measures to eliminate or reduce discards, for we understand that all Community fisheries have to be bound by certain rules that are the same for everyone.
It should be remembered that the only truly communitised aspect of this policy that we call ‘common’ is access to markets, while the conservation and management policy – let us stop calling it a control policy – leaves certain room for manoeuvre that Member States generally have no qualms in using to the benefit of their fleets and to the detriment of those of others.
We have just witnessed the Commission’s strong commitment to communitising and standardising control, and it would prove difficult to understand the way in which the remaining measures serve, on the contrary, to break up and fragment that control, or the fact that different rules are created for the same activity, depending on where it is carried out.
This jeopardises the entire credibility of the Common Fisheries Policy and its own future as such, something that should not be assumed before the 2012 reform."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples