Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-25-Speech-4-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020425.1.4-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with heartfelt thanks to you, Mr Kindermann, for your excellent report. Your analysis of both the strengths and weaknesses of our current fleet policy really is very much to the point, and I also share your opinion that the MAGPs have had their day. This sort of fleet policy no longer enables us to achieve our common objectives for the future.
The amount of the Community's contribution is, however, bound by the rules of the Structural Funds.
We need a more straightforward and more transparent fleet policy, and we also need it to work. Before dealing with the amendments that are being discussed today, I would like to say two things about the current state of fisheries policy and about the preparations for the reform, all the more as these have been mentioned by several speakers today. It goes without saying that we will, as far as possible, deal with the proposals in Mr Kindermann's report when we introduce our reforms, but there is one thing I wish to make clear. That is that I want reform, and the reform proposals are not going to end up being watered down in some way. What is going on at the moment is that additional information and analyses have been asked for from various parties – including within the Commission. As, then, I seek not only proposals for reform, but reform itself in the sense of a resolution in favour of reform, I go along with our taking this extra time to obtain
these supplementary items of information and put us in a position to defend our position against all comers.
I would like very briefly to address a second issue in view of the various reports that have appeared in the media here. Yesterday, the Commission decided on a quite major rotation of Directors-General and their deputies. One of those affected is the Director-General of the Fisheries Directorate-General, Mr Smidt, who, I would like to make abundantly clear, enjoys my complete confidence; he and I work well together. He too, though, is affected by the rotation, as there are a series of different objectives that are to be translated into reality. This is, by the way, not just about rotation, but also about other objectives. It is in this context that this change should be seen.
Let us now turn, however, to the individual items in the report. In your first and second points, you call on those Member States that have not reached their MAGP objectives to make greater efforts at reducing their fleets. On this I am in complete agreement with you, and the Commission has already commenced infringement proceedings against a number of Member States in connection with this.
In your third point, you urge the Council and the Commission to impose more effective and deterrent sanctions. I can assure you that we will take this up as part of the overall reform of the common fisheries policy, but I would like to add that, whilst sanctions are meant to have deterrent effect, we also must not lose sight of other principles, such as that of proportionality, according to which the extent of the offence has to be balanced by that of the sanction contemplated.
I agree with you on the fourth point as well. The Member States must complete the re-measurement of their fleets as soon as possible. The target date for this is the end of 2003. Against this, I am unable to agree with your statement in item 5. Even if the Member States had met all their targets, sustainable exploitation of the stocks would still not have been achieved. The reason for this is that the Council was far from ambitious enough and set the objectives in its MAGP resolutions far too low. You will be aware from our reports that fleet capacity is in reality showing an increase despite MAGP objectives – even when they are met – rather than falling.
I agree with your sixth and tenth points. The MAGPs should not be continued in their present form when the common fisheries policy is revised. There is a need for improvements to on-board safety. To that I commit myself, but it must not lead to an increase in fishing effort.
Your seventh point contains a demand for new criteria for measuring fishing effort and fishing capacities, and this we will discuss during the reform process. The number and size of the fishing gears could, for example, be included in measurements of capacity.
I accept your eighth point as well. A ‘new for old’ arrangement for fishing vessels features in our considerations of the new fleet policy. Your ninth point, too, we accept wholeheartedly. Restrictions on the fishing effort will be a cornerstone of the reforms. I can, finally, accept the demand you make in your eleventh point, namely, that it is necessary to create voluntary scrapping programmes with attractive premiums."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples