Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-318"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.9.3-318"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, may I begin by saying that I shall not speak about the proposal itself, other than to emphasise that the Commission regards this as one of the most important steps to be undertaken under the common fisheries policy.
Regarding Amendment No 9, the Commission cannot accept that amendment. Technical measures are dealt with in a different legislative proposal. Technical measures which are acceptable to Member States will bring about some improvement to the present situation, but do not go far enough. The Commission indicated earlier that only about 20% of the desired reduction in fishing mortality will be achieved by the application. A limitation of fishing effort is therefore also required. Compulsory scrapping of vessels is not mentioned in the proposal and it is not intended for the future CFP. TACs will be proposed at levels concordant with scientific advice.
Regarding Amendment No 10, the Commission cannot accept that amendment. Hake are not caught only by industrial fishing vessels and cod are caught in very small quantities. A proposal for 5% reflects the probable catches of cod and is therefore proportionate to the objective pursued.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment No 11. While it is difficult to calculate the amount of a supplementing premium needed to generate more interest in scrapping, 20% is already a significant increase and corresponds to previous practice in similar situations, for example structural measures for the ex-Morocco fleet in Spain and Portugal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment No 12. We see no reason to restrict safety-related aid to smaller vessels, that is, those of less than 12 metres. The recent proposals for CFP reform propose that all vessels should be eligible for such aid, provided that it does not affect the fishing capacity of the vessel.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment No 13. This is a very expensive form of aid, which does not reduce the underlying problem of over-capacity. Only short-term measures of this kind can be justified. To accept Community co-financing for a longer period would significantly reduce the availability of Community funds for co-financing of scrapping, which is clearly the priority objective in this case.
Amendment No 14 is not acceptable to the Commission, since the Community cannot accept full responsibility for aid of this kind. Co-financing is a fundamental principle for structural aid.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment No 15. A specification of the duration of the plan is not acceptable. The stocks will be deemed to have recovered whenever, for two consecutive years, science indicates that quantities of mature fish have been in excess of defined levels. Reference is made in the last Paragraph of the explanatory memorandum to the Commission's intention to conduct an impact study within 18 months of adoption of the proposal. This might be supported by the addition of texts in an article of the proposal, but the reference in the explanatory memorandum should be sufficient.
Regarding Amendment No 16, a review process can be envisaged, but not on an annual basis. It will take some time for the proposed measures to take effect. The earliest point in time would be after two full years of operation. Reference is made in the last paragraph of the explanatory memorandum to the Commission's intention to conduct an impact study within 18 months of adoption of the proposal. This might be supported by the addition of texts in an article of the proposal, but the reference in the explanatory memorandum should be sufficient.
I should like to refer to some additional remarks made by Members of Parliament. To begin with, Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna referred to the scientific advice on which we base our proposal. That advice is the advice of ICES. Despite its shortcomings, which nobody denies, the ICES advice is by far the best available. The reform of the common fisheries policy prioritises the improvement of scientific advice. In the meantime we have to work with the best advice we have, which is the ICES advice. This is also in reply to Mrs Miguélez Ramos.
As many here are aware, this proposal foreshadows many aspects to be discussed in future on the overall reform of the common fisheries policy. If we cannot collaborate to secure recovery of our fish stocks, the future of fish and fishermen cannot be ensured.
Let me now comment on the amendments. On Amendment No 1, the Commission cannot accept this amendment, which would remove reference to hake from the proposal. ICES has advised that the stock of hake is in danger of collapse. If this is the case, the Commission must act to rectify this situation. The only alternative assessment of the state of the stock is that prepared at the request of the
by Canadian fishery scientist, Mr Maguire. During the discussions in Council working parties, Spain has not challenged the validity of the ICES assessment of the historical development of the hake stock or of the current state of that stock. Spain has challenged one of the so-called precautionary reference points against which the state of the stock is judged. In detail, the Spanish officials have proposed that the value of 165 000 tonnes in the Commission proposal should be changed to 145 000 tonnes. This position does not contradict the perception that the stock is in danger of collapse. It perhaps means that it is in less danger, but the dangers still exist.
Regarding Amendment No 2, the Commission feels that this amendment is unnecessary since account is already consistently taken of scientific reports on environmental effects, to the extent that these effects are scientifically documented and quantified. An example is the effect of low salinity in recent years on reproductive success of cod in the Baltic. The other factors mentioned in the amendment lie beyond the scope of the common fisheries policy and therefore it would be inappropriate to refer to them in this proposal. Furthermore it remains a fact that for cod, hake and many other fish stocks, fishing is the main cause of mortality and the reduction of fishing is the most likely way to achieve recovery of the stocks.
Regarding Amendment No 3, the Commission is already working on improvement of all aspects of scientific advice. Any communication on this topic will be included in the second package of reform proposals, which will be presented to this Parliament in the near future. Furthermore, it is not correct to say that the necessary analysis of the correlation between fishing effort and mortality rates or the appropriate level of tax has not been made for the year 2002. For those reasons the Commission cannot accept that amendment.
Regarding Amendment No 4, the Commission can agree in principle with this analysis, since TACs are not instruments which will necessarily solve the problem of discards. The problem will only be solved if selectivity of fishing gears is increased or if fishing is reduced or prohibited in geographical areas in which small fish congregate. That aspect has been dealt with in a series of Commission and Council regulations emanating from the emergency situation with cod and hake. Also the Commission is currently working on an action plan on discards in the framework of the CFP reform. This amendment is therefore not necessary.
Regarding Amendment No 5, the Commission cannot accept this amendment, since it takes the view that public aid for vessel modernisation should be used only for the safety of fishing vessels, whereas the amendment implies that other objectives might also be eligible for aid. Aid which is likely to enhance the fishing power of fleets is no longer acceptable.
Regarding Amendment No 6, the Commission cannot accept this amendment since real time closures need to be enacted very rapidly. The inclusion of the Council in this mechanism would take much more time. Once the Council has taken a decision, real time closure would no longer be efficient.
Amendment No 7 is accepted: there has been a typographical error. Regarding Amendment No 8, the Commission is in the process of considering the impact of a lower annual variation in TAC level on stock recovery. That is a point on which the Council has also expressed some reservations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Instituto Español de Oceanografía"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples