Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-341"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.10.2-341"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, many thanks for all your contributions to the debate. I have followed your arguments carefully and would now like to comment on the individual amendments that have been proposed.
This brings me to the Fava report on our Action Plan to alleviate the social impacts. As regards paragraph 11 of the resolution on the inclusion of employment and health and safety conditions at work, I should point out that these objectives are already taken into account in the common fisheries policy. I am happy to comply with paragraph 5 of your resolution to the extent that we can always update the Action Plan when the Member States supply us with information on the socio-economic impacts for any future stock recovery plan or multiannual management plan. We have already fulfilled the demands set out in paragraph 13 on consultation with Member States and the fisheries sector. With regard to paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, let me say that I reminded the Member States, at the Fisheries Council on 26 May, that they should supply the Commission by 15 June this year with precise details of the additional funds needed to deal with the socio-economic impacts of the stock recovery plan for cod. To date, only the United Kingdom has provided more precise data, but it has indicated that it is seeking to cover the additional financial requirements from national funds. However, no other Member State has provided any data as yet.
I also asked for information to be provided to us on whether and how the Member States wish to revise their original programme planning in order to boost support for socio-economic measures. Without this information from the Member States, we will all – the Commission and the Parliament alike – have difficulties in complying with this year's European Parliament resolution. We will also be unable to convince the budgetary authorities of the need to make as much as EUR 150 million in additional funding available via the flexibility instrument to alleviate the crisis in the white fish sector if no such demands are forthcoming from the Member States.
I will start with the Hudghton report. In Amendments Nos 1 and 3, you draw attention to errors in the references in our proposal. Thank you for pointing this out. We will of course correct these mistakes. As regards Amendment No 2, we prefer to set out the provisions on the use of combinations of towed nets of more than one range of mesh size in a single Commission regulation, as this opens up more options for discussion and technical consultation with the experts from the Member States. Amendment No 4 concerns industrial fishing, where by-catches of undersized fish and other species undeniably occur, that is true. However, I should remind you in this context that in this fisheries sector, a maximum of 5% by-catch is permitted, and controls carried out primarily by ICES have revealed that in practice, the by-catch falls well below this 5% limit.
Amendments Nos 5, 8 and 10 on the regional advisory councils, as I have already pointed out, are redundant here, in my view. The new framework regulation already states that we will consult these regional bodies where there is a regional aspect to a proposal.
Amendments Nos 6 and 7 are redundant because their content is already included in the new framework regulation on the common fisheries policy. I can accept Amendment No 9 to the extent that I can take up the reference to the new framework regulation.
Finally, I would just like to clarify one point, because Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna asked whether I was referring to the first or the second Commission proposal. There is only one Commission proposal. There is also the report on the proposal, and my statement. What you mean, perhaps, is a non-paper which the Greek Presidency presented for discussion, but it is not a Commission proposal.
Let me turn now to the Stevenson report. The proposals relate to the western waters. I am happy to accept Amendments Nos 2 to 5 as they are entirely in line with the objectives contained in our proposal. However, I cannot accept Amendment No 6 as it would delete the recital which sets out the basic concept underlying our proposed regulation, namely to ensure that there is no increase in the overall levels of the fishing effort in the western waters and that the fishing effort is calculated on the basis of the fishing effort actually deployed to date in these fisheries. I can endorse Amendment No 10 in principle, although the right place for this text is in the recitals, not in the enacting terms of the regulation. I do not think that Amendment No 17 is necessary, as we are safeguarding the monitoring of the fishing effort through the proposal's other provisions. The inclusion of a clause on changes to the system is acceptable, however, so I endorse Amendment No 19. Unfortunately, I must reject Amendments Nos 20 to 29. I would like to make it clear at this point that the Irish Box is a thing of the past. There is no going back. Free access to the waters beyond the 12-mile zone is a fundamental principle of the common fisheries policy. It can be restricted if stock conservation measures warrant such a measure. However, such restrictions must then apply equally and without discrimination to all Member States.
Amendment No 30 concerns relative stability. This principle is already contained in the new framework regulation for the common fisheries policy and therefore does not need to be rolled out again here. As regards the outermost regions, I can accept Amendments Nos 8 and 13 to the extent that we should also restrict access to stocks other than tuna and related species, in order to protect the interests of local fisherman more effectively. However, this need not apply to the whole 200-mile zone. This should be looked at in more detail.
With regard to the pelagic stocks, I must unfortunately reject Amendments Nos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18. If practical problems arise due to the migration of stocks between the various ICES areas or sub-areas, the areas for the maximum permissible fishing effort can be extended without any difficulty to several sub-areas or to the whole western waters, instead of applying per sub-area. However, we cannot resolve potential problems of this kind by removing the pelagic species from the regulation altogether.
However, I am happy to accept your Amendment No 1 regarding the adaptation of the text reference to the new framework regulation on the common fisheries policy. The same applies to Amendment No 7, which relates to scientific and biological surveys and Amendment No 9 on satellite monitoring systems."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples