Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-04-Speech-3-371"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010704.12.3-371"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, as I have taken over the speech from my colleague, Mrs Wallström, I will speak in English.
The Commission is concerned that Amendments Nos 16 and 42 might give an incorrect, narrow impression of the breadth of the integrated coastal zone management approach. In particular, in Amendments Nos 25 and 47, while the Commission accepts the need to involve all the parties concerned, this text should not be limited to the special planning process, but should make broader reference to all of the actors involved in the planning and management of the coastal zones and its resources. The Commission would also note that it cannot accept two amendments, which make inappropriate reference to other Community policies which are better discussed in a different context. The reference to the INTERREG Programme in Amendment No 16 is inappropriate as the guidelines for INTERREG have been set out elsewhere.
Similarly, the reference in Amendment No 35 to the common fisheries policy and the 12-mile derogation is not acceptable as it prejudges the debate on the revision of this policy. In addition, Amendments Nos 47 and 48 are not acceptable, at least in part, because they could lead to the endorsement of unsustainable traditional practices including those relating to hunting and fishing.
Concerning the remaining amendments – and this list is longer than the non-acceptable amendments – the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1, 3 to 10, 13, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 46; and in addition, it can accept Amendments Nos 2, 14, 24, 36, and 44 in principle. As a result, two thirds of the amendments can be accepted by the Commission.
In conclusion, Parliament has significantly contributed to improving this proposal. I would, therefore, like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs McKenna, and the draftsmen from the other committees for their efforts. I am sure that the final text will be an important step in encouraging the application of integrated coastal zone management in Europe.
The coastal zone is very important for Europe, as other speakers have said. Its resources provide us with food, energy and homes and create opportunities. However, according to the reports of the European Environmental Agency, conditions in the coastal zone and its resources continue to decline. Conditions in the coastal zone can only be improved through a concentrated effort involving all levels of the relevant sectors of government based on the principles of integrated coastal zone management.
I would like to stress that this integrated coastal zone management is not a procedure for land-use planning
. It is more a methodology for introducing a coherent approach to the management and use of coastal resources with the informed involvement of all the relevant stakeholders.
In order to encourage Member States to assume their full responsibility in promoting integrated coastal zone management, the Commission has introduced the proposed recommendation. This calls on Member States to develop national strategies for coastal zone management based on an inventory of the actors, laws and institutions involved in the management and planning of the coastal zones. This strategy aims to introduce a coherent approach to the coastal zones across Europe but the recommendation intentionally leaves the choice of the format of the national strategies to the Member States to ensure that each national strategy is tailor-made to the institutional, physical and social conditions within each Member State.
At the same time, the recommendation presents a list of features which the Member States are encouraged to address through their national strategies, such as the need for coherence between the many plans, policies and programmes for management of the coasts and the need for coordination between the actors that use and manage the coast, particularly those with responsibility for the sea and the land which forms part of the coastal zone.
Let me turn to the key issues raised in the amendments proposed. I would like to start by noting that the Commission can accept many of the proposed amendments. Indeed, many of the proposed amendments strengthen the text by clarifying concepts and introducing further information. We thank Parliament for putting forward these amendments. There are, however, certain amendments which the Commission cannot accept.
Several of the amendments proposed, namely Amendments Nos 11, 12, 16, 18, 29, 32, 43 and 49, introduce references to a future Community legislative framework. These amendments are unacceptable to the Commission for the obvious reason that they prejudge the issue of whether a legislative approach is required. In addition, a reference to a Community legislative framework would not be appropriate in view of the wide diversity of conditions in the Member States and the Commission’s philosophy of coastal zone management.
The Commission’s present decision to propose a recommendation was based on a thorough assessment of the needs for action at the European level through the demonstration programme on integrated coastal zone management and on a broad public consultation. In the same spirit, the Commission cannot accept amendments which introduce compulsory language. "Shall" is not the right word in a non-binding instrument, such as a recommendation and therefore the use of this word in Amendments Nos 29, 32 and 34 cannot be accepted by the Commission.
Similarly, the references in Amendments Nos 17, 20, 33 and 45 indicating the need for binding instruments within the Member States ignore the fact that integrated coastal zone management may be best introduced through voluntary measures in some Member States. These parts of these amendments are therefore not acceptable either. Otherwise, the six amendments are acceptable in principle or in part."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples