Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-13-Speech-4-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051013.4.4-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety.
This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters.
In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures.
Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic.
The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated.
I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3.
I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004.
Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples