Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-13-Speech-4-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051013.4.4-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mr Chmielewski once again on his report. He made reference to the fact that he had been faced with a very difficult challenge and needed to find a workable compromise. The end result is very much a workable compromise, and the Commission is prepared to accept all the amendments except the one I have already mentioned.
I also agree that the breakthrough came with the acceptance of the T90 codend, which could be used as an alternative to the BACOMA trawl. I confirm that ISIS advises that the T90 codend has the same selectivity as the BACOMA exit window and we can therefore accept its use.
With regard to driftnets, we accept the study which can indicate what remedial measures can be taken which would be of a socio-economic nature. However, the Commission has no intention of considering an extension of the phasing-out of driftnets with regard to the Baltic, simply because of the fact that the driftnets ban has already been in place with the regulation of 1998 and the extension and phasing-out up to 2010 for the Baltic was already a special concession and it does not make sense to grant any further extension or concession, otherwise we risk opening up again the whole argument with regard to driftnets and place in doubt the validity of such driftnets in the other Community waters. It is true that the number of porpoises is very low. This, however, makes it even more important to continue to uphold the ban to ensure that no irreparable damage occurs with regard to porpoises. The low populations of porpoises put even more responsibility on us to ensure their protection.
In addition, there is a general driftnet ban, which is part of the
as I mentioned before, and we must ensure that this is in no way prejudiced.
First of all I should like to thank Mr Kindermann and Mr Schlyter for their support. With regard to the point made by Mr Schlyter concerning the closed season for cod, it must be said that the closure and the closed areas for cod and the closed season for cod is not a voluntary measure. It is a mandatory measure, which was introduced together with the TACs and quotas regulation at the December Council. However, at the moment we are preparing a recovery plan for cod in the Baltic Sea and it is obvious that technical measures and measures relating to closed areas and closed seasons will form an integral part of this recovery plan. It is also obvious that if fishermen are constrained to tie up as a result of such closed seasons, then, under normal Community rules, they would be entitled to compensation for that tie-up if it is considered to be of an exceptional nature or is a result of the measures of a recovery plan.
With regard to what Mr Titford said, I can only say that I cannot agree with him."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples