Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-09-Speech-3-316"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080409.29.3-316"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, my thanks are due to the shadow rapporteurs and all on the Fisheries Committee for producing a well-balanced report on what is a very complex and in many ways sensitive issue.
In some public debate, rights-based management is equated with the employment of individual transferable quotas. The report takes a much broader view, treating the term as covering any of the forms that can be taken by the right to harvest fish, given that these are seen as a common public good. So understood, it is clear that there is a variety of such forms currently in operation throughout the EU. For example, the extent of the right may be specified by reference to the territory to be fished, the amount of fish to be harvested, the effort allowed or some mixture of these. Similarly, although the right is implicitly transferable, there are various limitations in this respect. For example, that from Community to Member States is conditioned by the principle of relative stability. Further, there seems to be a considerable range of such limitations. One particular form of divergence between Member States is how far transfer for economic value is permitted, either formally or informally, and thus amounts to a tradable right.
The central issue is, then, how fisheries management should engage in constituting the right to harvest in order best to obtain the objectives of the common fisheries policy. The Commission communication raises the question of the extent to which a single system might be introduced, either at Community level or by harmonising the practice of Member States. The report of the Fisheries Committee details a number of concerns about the adverse impacts that certain types of rights-based management might have, but also touches on the manner in which some of these might be prevented. It indicates too the way in which certain types of rights-based management can have positive effects, provided they are properly devised.
The report notes the variety of systems of rights-based management currently in place, the degree to which the forms of right concerned are hybrid ones and the complexity of the issues involved. It is consequently rightly cautious about the idea of moving to any single system. Over and above the need to protect artisanal fleets, we raise the question of whether, on a more general basis, the same system would be appropriate for both single species and multi-species fisheries. We finish by asking the Commission to address a number of different questions in its study and, in view of all that needs to be taken into consideration, to allow a longer time for debate.
In conclusion, I would like to touch more deeply on one aspect of the report. Although rights-based management is essentially a juristic concept, I have the impression that much of the drive towards its discussion has come from economists.
I do not think that anyone here would doubt that fisheries management must take account of sound economic principles. Indeed the report indicates some of the positive outcomes to which economic efficiency may give rise.
But such efficiency has to be seen as an instrumental good. As the report states, it is valuable insofar as it promotes the objectives of the CFP. I have personal doubts that economic efficiency is sufficient, in itself, to promote all these objectives to the desired extent and suspect that there are ways in which it may prove counterproductive to some aspects of them.
I seek reassurance, therefore, that the Commission will take a genuinely rounded approach, both in relation to the content and to the outcome of the study."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples