Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-09-Speech-3-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021009.12.3-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my warm thanks for this debate, but want to remind you that this proposal was submitted by the Commission as long ago as the beginning of March, and I also want to make it clear that the Commission did not give the Council any agreement to the political compromise that the latter had worked out; on the contrary, the Commission has noted that it will take up a final position on the acceptability or otherwise of this compromise only after Parliament has made its views known.
I must say in all frankness that there is also no truth in the assertion that no scientific evaluation exists. A scientific opinion has been given by ICES, and also by our scientific advisory forum. There is indeed no lack of scientific foundation for what we are doing!
Let me turn now to the various amendments, which I would like to evaluate in the light of the debate. The first amendment is one that the Commission can accept. I agree that ling, tusk and red spot seabream should be taken out of the scope of the regulation, although these fish should remain on the list of species for which detailed information on catches is required. I can also accept Amendments Nos 2 and 4, but not Amendment No 3, as I am against removing the supplementary provisions on satellite surveillance from our proposal, our practical experience with the satellite system having shown that failures are often not real failures at all, but are simulated in order to circumvent the surveillance.
Moreover, traditional monitoring with patrol vessels and aircraft is far from adequate to deal with deep sea fishing, especially in very distant areas; indeed, it is not even a workable proposition. We therefore need effective monitoring by satellite, and we must tighten up the definition of an equipment failure and the consequences resulting from one. I am happy to take on board the addition to Amendment No 5 to the effect that fishing days should be days out of port; that is a useful clarification, but the reference to catch areas is less clear than our proposal that the exact ICES statistical rectangle should be indicated. I am therefore unwilling to accept it. Considerations of confidentiality lead me to consider it inappropriate to publicise the identification of individual vessels for scientific studies.
I can understand that the measurement of engine power in kilowatts is problematic and difficult to enforce. Instead, then, of deleting the reference to capacity, which is necessary to scientific analysis, we want to improve the reference by, for example, specifying the classes of vessels, which can be summarised by reference to gross registered tonnage.
Amendment No 6 is, in my view, a good idea, and I am willing to provide for revision of the measures in 2005. I can also go along with Amendment No 7, but not with Amendment No 8. The Commission, in any case, has consultations as a matter of routine with the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries on the social and economic consequences of conservation measures, but I am quite happy to accept Article 9a and submit to the Council and to Parliament, by 30 June 2005, a report on the general arrangements for the management of deepwater species, which would also cover the scientific dimension of a reduction in fishing effort.
I cannot accept Amendment No 9 as at present drafted, as no scientific evaluations have been submitted to us demanding a ban on fixed gillnets, but I will take up your suggestion in this regard and ask ICES for a scientific evaluation of whether and for which areas such a ban on fixed gillnets might be a sensible conservation measure. I can agree to Amendment No 10. I have to reject Amendment No 11; although it is the case that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea recommends a reduction in the fishing effort for deepwater species, the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries regards additional TACs as a useful supplementary measure.
I am happy to accept Amendment No 12, but the Commission has to reject Amendment No 13 on the grounds that it would go against the precautionary principle. We must act as soon as we get scientific advice for the first time. The same is true of Amendment No 14, which I cannot accept either. In order to implement in practice an effort limitation, we need deep-sea fishing licences. I regret that I also have to turn down Amendment No 15. We are all aware that the deep sea fishing fleet has rapidly increased in power and capacity. If we were to change the reference period, we would be permitting a de facto further increase in the size of the deep sea fleet, which however does not at all fit in with the effort limitations that are urgently necessary.
In conclusion, I have no option but to reject the final amendment, No 16, as well, as this amendment would make possible derogations from the regulation that would be impossible to monitor, the things termed ‘force majeure’ or ‘risk to the safety of vessels’ being concepts lacking any definition in law. Of course safety has to be guaranteed – there can be no question whatever about that. The provisions we have now also allow a ship at risk to dock in a port other than that designated, provided that it does not land its catch there. I believe this approach to be already balanced and to take the safety of ships sufficiently into account, as well as the enforceable provisions on conservation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples