Mr President, I support a good deal of what Mrs Miguélez Ramos has just so boldly been talking about, since this morning there is a subject on the agenda that will have far-reaching effects upon the future of fisheries policy in Europe: the consolidation of dialogue with the fishing industry regarding the European common fisheries policy. We in the European Parliament have, for years now, been conducting an intensive dialogue with the fishing industry. We also accompany delegations to Europe’s fishing regions in order to ask the relevant questions on the spot. In that way, we can gain a better insight into the problems of those who have to live and work with the European regulations on a daily basis. This week, I was a guest at the Green Week, the agricultural show in Berlin, where I engaged in a dialogue of this kind with representatives from the German fisheries sector. The subject is extremely topical and highly explosive, especially as we are on the threshold of the reform of the European common fisheries policy in the year 2002. Basically, the policy has to ensure that all interests are properly taken into account and, above all, that the result is the sustainable exploitation of fishing resources. Communication between the fisheries sector and the institutions of the Community must be a two-way process. Industry must articulate its requirements and communicate them to the Commission. On the other hand, the Commission has to prepare and make known the relevant stipulations and decisions. What is being sought is a dialogue, not a monologue. This is something which the Commission has acknowledged, and only by being aware – as, more than anyone else, the people affected are aware – of the problem areas, the difficulties and the possible ways of solving these, will it be possible to make appropriate decisions in the future. In order to achieve this goal, the Commission has taken two steps. By means of the proposed regulation in question, the Commission is aiming – quite rightly – to strengthen the European professional associations. Dialogue can, of course, only be carried on if, without compromising their independence, the relevant discussion partners in the fisheries sector are also given financial support to enable them to participate at all in the discussions in Brussels. Approximately EUR 400 000 have this year been set aside for that purpose. The success of the dialogue will, of course, depend entirely upon how clearly the Commission is able, by means of educational initiatives, to explain the complex technical aspects on the spot in the regions. I therefore vigorously support the Commission’s present initiative. At the same time, I must, however, point out a major reservation. In fact, this concerns the second step which Mrs Miguélez has also explained to us here. It is about the reform of the important Advisory Committee on Fisheries. This is the basis for the dialogue. Why was the European Parliament not consulted when what was at issue was the form and organisation of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and the tasks to be carried out by this very important interface and coordinating point for the much sought after dialogue? This is a failure that we shall continue to criticise. Further small reservations I have concern the difficulty of finding genuine representatives of the various sectors of the fisheries industry, given its fragmented structure with its geographical diversity and weak structure in terms of professional associations. Here, it is a question of at last creating practical conditions. However, this also presupposes our perhaps giving some consideration to a new organisational structure for the fisheries sector. Of course, that is always assuming that the fishermen concerned have confidence, on the one hand, in the policy and, on the other hand, in the European common fisheries policy in particular. I would therefore ask of you that we in future make the most strenuous efforts in this regard.

Political group: PPE-DE