Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-14-Speech-4-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050414.5.4-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteurs for their hard and constructive work. I also wish to thank Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna for his good work on the hake plan.
After extensive consultation with my officials and with officials and fishing representatives in Member States, I can agree to some modification in the size and number of closed areas for fishing for Nephrops. However, complete deletion of any reference to closed areas, as in Amendments 6, 7, and 24, goes too far to be compatible with precautionary management at this stage.
Management of hake and Nephrops in the Gulf of Cadiz is an important issue given the abundance of juvenile hake in that area. On the basis of the precautionary principle, greater uncertainty in this area is not a reason to be less cautious, so I cannot support Amendments 1, 8 or 9, which would exclude this area. However, I accept that measures for the Gulf of Cadiz may need to be different.
I cannot accept Amendment 30. Capacity needs to be managed so as to be in balance with the productivity of the fish stocks. If either or both fishing effort and capacity were allowed to increase again once the stocks are recovered, the result would be a decline in the stocks and a reduction in the amount of fish available to the industry. This would not achieve the aim of sustainable exploitation.
Turning now to the Morillon report, I am pleased to say I can fully agree with Amendments 7, 16, 17, 18 19, 20, 21 and 22. It is entirely appropriate to remove the chapter concerning management of effort by kilowatt days, to apply control measures only to landings above 100 kg instead of 50 kg. I accept that the provision for the margin of tolerance in logbooks should be the same as that already adopted for Northern hake. I also accept that, as a general rule, variations in TAC should be limited to no more than 15% for these stocks.
Notwithstanding the deletion of the kilowatt days scheme from the proposal, it will be necessary to substitute alternative effort management measures. For the Western Channel sole, these should be based on the measures already introduced under Annex IVc of the current TAC and Quota Regulation.
The biological state of sole in the Bay of Biscay is apparently better than previously thought and it is appropriate to apply a management plan to this stock, rather than a recovery plan. I can therefore accept the substance of Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12 and 13, but only insofar as it relates to Bay of Biscay sole. The biological conditions prevailing for Western Channel sole are sufficiently serious for recovery plan provisions to apply to that stock.
I also support the idea of an interim report mechanism as mooted in Amendment 11, as I mentioned when discussing southern hake and Nephrops. However, the plan needs to be given time to take effect before a review is useful, so a four-year interval would be appropriate here, which is a similar timescale to the one used for the interim evaluations of long-term measures agreed for the northern stocks shared with Norway.
I can also agree with the idea of setting a target fishing mortality rate for Bay of Biscay sole, as in Amendment 15. However, we should take account of the scientific advice that will be provided by STECF in June on this topic, and I will reserve my position on the right figure to use until I have seen that report.
However, I cannot agree with the idea of setting a TAC according to an annual increase in the quantity of adult fish in the sea. The scientific advice is simply not precise enough to allow such an approach and I fear the result would be an unwarranted, overly erratic adaptation of TACs. The fishing industry needs more stability than this method can provide. I am not therefore in a position to support Amendments 8 or 14.
I see legal problems with certain amendments. Amendment 5 would be in contradiction to the requirements of the last sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and the last sentence of Article 6(2) of the same Regulation. And while Regional Advisory Councils, where they exist, should be consulted when developing new legislation, the implementation of regulations is the responsibility of Member States. For this technical reason, I cannot support Amendments 5 or 6. However, we would certainly have no problem with Member State authorities consulting the Regional Advisory Council, on a voluntary basis, concerning such plans.
Concerning the proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the Southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian Peninsula and amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98, I can fully agree with 14 of the 26 amendments considered by the Committee on Fisheries. These are Amendments 2, 4, 10 in part, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 26.
It is appropriate to remove the out-of-date proposals concerning management by kilowatt days, to adapt the minimum quantities concerning control arrangements according to the measures set up for 2005, to establish tolerance margins and conversion factors consistent with those in the Northern hake recovery plan, and I can agree with the deletion of obsolete provisions concerning effort messages. The fishing mortality rate of 0.27 is acceptable because it is consistent with the Implementation Plan of the World Summit on Sustainable Development adopted in Johannesburg in 2002.
I also agree that it is appropriate that a recovery plan should anticipate a recovery taking place within less than five years. Although estimates of biomass of fish stocks are uncertain, observations of stock size above a precautionary level for two years in a row could be a way to signal the need to move from a recovery phase into a long-term management plan.
Concerning Amendment 10, we can, therefore, accept the 35 000 tonnes exit criterion, but not the requirement of a ten-year delay in recovery or the reference to ‘in a sufficient period of time’. Such an approach would be contrary to the FAO Code of Conduct. We do not fix the duration of the plans: we set an objective and estimate the approximate time we will need to achieve it.
I cannot accept Amendments 15 or 16 because the 10% constraint on TAC changes is too tight to allow an adaptation to real circumstances. In line with the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, the figure should be retained at 15% rather than 10%, but the 15% could apply in the first year of the plan.
I support the principles behind Amendment 17 and can accept paragraphs 1 and 2 of that amendment, with modifications committing the Council, as well as the Commission, and making reference to maintaining the arrangements embodied in Annex IVb of Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 on a comparable basis to the cod recovery plan. For these reasons, I cannot support Amendment 27.
In relation to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Amendment 17, and Amendments 3, 28 and 30, state aids should be decided in the context of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and the European Fisheries Fund, so that comparable financial resources are made available to all fishermen who find themselves in similar situations. As is the case with sole stocks, which I will come to later, it is appropriate to have an interim review procedure, but this should be done at reasonable intervals.
I could support Amendment 25, subject to the extension of the review period to four years rather than two years. I cannot support attempts to rebuild stock size year-by-year, because of the disruptions that this is likely to cause industry, and I cannot support Amendment 5."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples