Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-16-Speech-4-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041216.6.4-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I thank Mr Ribeiro for his report on the proposal to protect deep-water coral reefs from the effects of trawling in certain areas of the Atlantic Ocean. This is the first time I have addressed the plenary of this Parliament and it is satisfying that the first proposal that I am dealing with is focused upon the protection of deep-water coral reefs – an issue of great importance to us all. Doubtless, we will have many an occasion in future, both within this plenary and within the Committee on Fisheries, to discuss issues not only relating to conservation and the preservation of fish stocks but also relating to issues such as deep-water coral reefs.
Having studied the scientific evidence and considering the irreversible damage that certain fishing gear can cause to these unique habitats, we propose in this regulation to ban the use of bottom trawls and similar trawl gear in the areas concerned. With this proposal, we fulfil the commitment given at the Fisheries Council of 23 October 2003, when the new 'western waters' regulation was approved to ensure protection for these habitats. I am happy to note that the rapporteur recommends that Parliament approve these measures, as does the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in its opinion.
The Commission welcomes the adoption of measures to minimise the impact of fishing on marine ecosystems. They show our determination to work for the integration of environmental concerns in the common fisheries policy, as envisaged in the reform of 2002, and as repeatedly called for by public opinion.
I turn briefly to the amendments proposed in the report before us. I can accept Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3. However, I have difficulty in accepting Amendment No 4, since it is not in line with the legislation on the mandate that is given to regional advisory councils. These councils are to be consulted on the development of proposals for legislation, but consultation of them is not envisaged on the implementation of such legislation. As for Amendment No 5, the Commission has difficulty accepting the substance of this amendment as it is currently worded. The Commission is bound to review all proposals in the light of new scientific evidence. Hence, obliging the Commission to do so in a specific timeframe could also work against the spirit and purpose of the proposal.
Furthermore, we need to be conscious of the fact that the production of scientific evidence is very much dependent on the Member States and, therefore, the Commission is not in a position to guarantee its availability as prescribed in the amendment, that is, within a specified timeframe.
On Amendment No 6, the Commission notes that while it could find such an amendment acceptable, it is not really necessary since the geographical application of the regulation is well known and already established.
As for Amendment No 7, in accordance with scientific advice, the main threat to the very fragile deep-water habitats is bottom trawling. Damage caused by other gear, in particular specific gear such as gillnets and longlines, may be real, but is very minor compared to the erosion effects of trawls.
Furthermore, extending the prohibition on trawling throughout the European economic zone would appear to be excessive, i.e. would appear not to be proportionate since the majority of this area does not have submarine features threatened by fishing. In these circumstances, the Commission is not in a position to accept Amendment No 7.
Finally, the Commission has difficulty accepting Amendment No 8, because it would create a duplication of effort. Comprehensive revisions of the status of deep-water features are currently being carried out by the International Council for the Exploitation of the Sea, ICES. This is considered to be sufficient."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples