Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-23-Speech-4-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031023.1.4-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, having listened very attentively to the debate, I would like to point out to Mrs Doyle that now is perhaps not the time to discuss how we intend to implement the ‘Western Waters’ Regulation. There will be other opportunities to do that.
I do not think that Amendment No 9 is to the point, as satellite monitoring systems will be required to be installed on all vessels over 15 metres in length with effect from 2005.
Although I have to reject Amendment No 11, I would at the same time like to point out that ICES is engaged in completing its ecosystem study on the influence of industrial fishing, and we will take appropriate account of any new knowledge that emerges from it.
I can accept the first two paragraphs of Amendment No 12, but am obliged to reject the third. We cannot instruct the Member States to access any funds to cushion the socio-economic impact.
Amendment No 13 is, I think, a very good one, as there is a need for the annual review of stocks that it proposes.
I am obliged to reject Amendment No 14. No new definition of the tasks of the regional advisory councils is required as they are clearly laid down in the new Framework Regulation.
I would like to respond to the questions raised by setting out the Commission’s position on the individual amendments.
I am unable to accept Amendment No 1 on the grounds that drastic measures are called for, not by the precautionary approach, but by the fact that cod stocks are below biologically safe levels and are therefore threatened by collapse.
I am, though, very much able to accept Amendment No 2, although I would suggest a clearer form of words indicating that the fishing effort should be constrained in proportion to the Member States’ catches.
Amendment No 4 came as a surprise to me, since, as you are aware, I have called on the Member States, not once but repeatedly, to inform us of the socio-economic impact of the recovery plan. I also asked them to notify us of any additional financial requirements they might have. The Commission has, unfortunately, received no replies to these enquiries. I have also drawn the attention of the Member States to the fact that they can reprogram the funds in the FIFG in order to support the sector. None of them have availed themselves of this facility.
Amendment No 5 is superfluous, as the Commission can, in any case, propose changes to the geographical areas in question.
Turning to Amendment No 6, I have to tell you that these technical measures can, if need be, supplement restrictions on fishing effort, but cannot replace them.
Amendment No 7 is superfluous, as, if fishing vessels are not on either List 1 or List 2, then they are not permitted to land catches of the species mentioned. The fishing effort is calculated on the basis of the list in Article 9.
Amendment No 8 will not work, as the definition of ‘days absent from port’ must correspond with that laid down in other regulations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples