Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-13-Speech-4-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051013.4.4-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, my report concerns the proposal for a Council regulation on the conservation of fishing resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea dated 14 March 2005. This regulation is one of a long list of Union documents aimed on the one hand at codifying existing solutions and on the other at extending their application to include the 10 new Member States, four of which are on the Baltic, as is well known. It should be noted at the outset that not everything in the Council’s proposal was to the liking of the aforementioned four countries. Many key articles were rejected outright.
As a rapporteur who is a national of one of those countries I found myself in an inordinately difficult position. In fact my country is one of those likely to be affected most by the new directive. I had to find a way through this political maze, which was no easy task. As usually happens, I was challenged to find an advantageous compromise, which was particularly difficult in this case as it involved technical fishing measures which are not particularly amenable to efforts at mediation. Whatever the underlying political intentions, there are other factors that impinge on fishing techniques, notably verification by those involved at a practical level, namely fishermen, and the fish themselves, that are quite oblivious to efforts at political mediation.
Fortunately it proved possible to reduce the controversial issues to just a couple of crucial ones. Thanks are due to the Members involved and to the representatives of the European Commission for the efforts made in this regard. Most importantly, they succeeded in finding a compromise concerning the issue of cod fishing gear. Cod is the most important fish in the Baltic and the main source of income for those who fish in that sea. In addition to the exit window for juveniles recommended in the Council’s proposal and known as the BAKOMA – and I know this is just a detail – the Committee on Fisheries and the European Commission agreed to the use of the cheaper tried and tested T90 codend. This is equivalent as far as quality is concerned. It was a Polish and German idea.
As a result of face to face working meetings with the authors of the proposal, the obvious weaknesses of the latter were remedied by the inclusion of essential definitions of items of fishing gear referred to in several articles. The most important of these definitions concerned the extension piece, which is mentioned frequently in the regulation. Thanks to the efforts made, many concerns were allayed and the controversial restrictions in a number of provisions were toned down. The flexible nature of certain articles also became clearer. As a result, the rapporteur was able to withdraw Amendment 16 and scale down five other amendments concerning in particular the restrictive Article 6, to which the Commissioner has already referred. This article is a source of worry for the entire fishing sector in the Baltic, calling as it does for a ban on items of fishing gear used on a fairly regular basis.
There was also the problem of salmon driftnets, which gave rise to the strongest feelings in the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries. The Polish fishing sector is of the opinion that the rest of Europe believes driftnets represent a serious threat to marine mammals, particularly porpoises, if these nets are used for salmon fishing. In the southern Baltic, however, these nets do not represent a threat because porpoises are extremely rare there. It is also the case that a decision to ban such nets in this part of the Baltic would prevent some 60 Polish ship owners from fishing for salmon.
Aware of both aspects of the problem posed by these nets, on the one hand the Union’s requirements concerning protection of resources in the Baltic, and on the other salmon fishermen’s livelihoods and their futures, the rapporteur suggested the only possible compromise solution in this situation. This was to take account of the Council’s recommendations whilst at the same time undertaking reliable studies of the Baltic waters. The study should establish the true state of affairs and evaluate the actual impact of the use of these nets and other entangling gear on marine mammals. Completion is set for 2008.
Here ends the tale of my report. I was challenged to move mountains, and like all parliamentary compromises, it meets the conditions for acceptance by the House even if it does not please everyone all of the time, Polish fishermen in particular. Our compromise does meet the aforementioned conditions, and the Committee on Fisheries eventually agreed on it unanimously.
I have already thanked the Members responsible, the rest of the Committee on Fisheries and the European Commission’s experts. I should also like to thank all other experts, researchers and fishing gear manufacturers from the Baltic countries who gave their time voluntarily to help the rapporteur become familiar with this very important aspect of fishing activity which is also challenging as it requires specialist knowledge."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples