Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-287"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.12.2-287"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the report I am presenting deals with the regional meetings arranged by the Commission in 1998-1999. It has been subject to intense and, at times, heated debate in committee, because it is one of the first reports, like those by Mr Gallagher, Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna and Mr Cunha, to force us to consider the common fisheries policy for 2002 rather than because it is crucial or likely to lead to decisions being made.
This is a sensitive subject, involving a sector with very specific characteristics and one which affects some quite typical and fairly limited regions in Europe. The activities of the sector usually generate a great many jobs both up and downstream, making many regions dependent on fisheries, with no easy alternatives to turn to in times of crisis. Everyone in these regions knows that 31 December 2002 will be crucial, since this is the deadline for the common fisheries policy, as in 1992 and 1982, as if we produced a new one every 10 years.
With a view to forming as rounded an opinion as possible in order to prepare for this deadline, which I believe was a good idea, the Commission organised a systematic consultation process involving everyone associated or involved with this activity, sending out questionnaires and arranging meetings. Thirty meetings were held, attended by nearly 1 500 people.
With regard to the form of proceedings, the method of the report was discussed. Some Members would have preferred not to examine the subject in too much depth. We debated the matter at great length within the parliamentary committee and, in the end, the Committee on Fisheries went along with the opinion of the rapporteur – as, in my view, there really was no other option – with everyone able to argue their own corner on the subject, just as usual. With regard to the substance, however, national and even regional differences within the Member States were seen to be more intense than the rather traditional political differences, and that is why a number of amendments were tabled. These amendments show that, although the original positions were sometimes far apart, the political debate allowed groups to be reconciled, leading to an open-minded text which provides a sound starting point, along with the other reports, from which to undertake the reform of the common fisheries policy.
Looking at the amendments and more generally, most of the provisions voted on in committee adopt the rapporteur’s point of view, with some additional specification or clarification. A Green Paper is due to be issued in the coming months – at the end of March of this year, I believe – followed by the legislative text in the course of 2002. At the moment, two main schools of thought are discernible. The first would like to see a thorough re-evaluation of the entire system and all the foundations, past and present, of the common fisheries policy. The second, while avoiding a complete re-examination of the existing foundations, would like to see the system clarified, amended and improved so that the fisheries sector can develop while, of course, preserving fish resources. Quite obviously, the European fisheries sector has to deal with the problems that most other fishing industries throughout the world are currently experiencing. They do not affect just our continent or our waters. Overfishing reduces stocks, catch sizes and revenue, and is the main threat as far as the future of resources and the fishing industry proper are concerned. Increased competition, associated with the globalisation of the market in fishery products, is a further problem.
If the fisheries industry is to become more competitive, it will depend on the sector’s ability to adapt in order to face up to the constraints imposed by both the state of its resources and by commercial demand. The common fisheries policy is the European Union’s management tool for regenerating the fisheries industry and aquaculture. This policy was drawn up in order to manage a common resource and to respect the commitments laid down in the first European Treaties.
The report, therefore, expresses views on the four aspects of the common fisheries policy, which are conservation and management of resources, structural policy, market organisation and relations with third countries. Review of the main areas of the Union’s fisheries policy is called for throughout. That is the guiding principle. The precautionary principle, the latest thing, so to speak, is clearly included, as is the commitment to developing a responsible fisheries policy.
In particular, I would like to highlight some suggestions, especially maintaining the
position on the 6/12-mile zone; maintaining boxes after scientific checks have been carried out along with, inevitably, the issue of access to the North Sea, which will be more difficult in view of our enlargement plans; maintaining the system of TACs and quotas, on condition that they be reviewed; vigilance regarding individual transferable quotas and a thorough review of the Multiannual Guidance Programmes; harmonising inspections and infringements and, of course, committing to fisheries agreements and action programmes specifically designed for the Mediterranean.
I should like to finish by adding, as Mr Gallagher said, that we do not wish to see regionalisation become renationalisation nor do we wish for further social measures to be introduced into the common fisheries policy. Perhaps Mr Gallagher and I have given the impression that we are repeating ourselves. Politics involves repeating oneself and contradicting oneself. We have opted to repeat ourselves."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples