Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060515.17.1-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Mr President, I welcome Parliament’s report on the Commission’s proposal concerning eels and would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Maat, for his good work.
I can accept that the burden caused by the need for reports should be lightened, as proposed in Amendment 26, but this could take place through less frequent reports. It is still necessary for Member States to improve substantially the collection of data, so a requirement to improve the scientific basis for eel management is an important part of my proposal.
Amendment 24 suggests extending eel management plans to coastal waters and, in particular, to the Baltic Sea. I agree that management of eel fisheries in coastal areas is important, but it would not be technically feasible at present to apply an escapement target to sea fisheries, because this cannot be measured. Indeed, I will support the inclusion of marine fisheries for eels as fisheries that should be subject to a 50% reduction of general fishing effort.
I thank the Committee on Fisheries and the rapporteur, Mr Maat, for their very positive cooperation in the preparation of this report. I sincerely hope that, by making a significant and substantial effort in the near future, it will be possible to improve considerably the situation of eel stocks in Europe.
I see that Parliament has taken very seriously the grave threat to the European eel population. Parliament has made a number of helpful and practical suggestions to improve the proposal. I can support many of the amendments as they stand. A number of others I can support in principle, but not their inclusion in the proposal, because they should be dealt with in another way. A small number of other issues require further scientific analysis before they can be implemented practically.
I can accept Amendments 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 29. I agree that Member States should be able to choose their own closed seasons to reduce fishing effort by 50% and that the timescale of the proposal should be lengthened so that Member States can better develop management plans and have more flexibility in defining the areas to which eel management plans should apply. I also accept that Member States should be able to move forwards individually if difficulties arise in developing management plans in cooperation between several states.
There are several amendments proposed to which I am sympathetic in principle, but which concern issues that I believe should be addressed differently. Amendments 4, 8 and 11 concern implementation and further research on the way aquaculture could be involved in improving the stocking of European waters with eels. Research needs cannot be addressed directly in a Council regulation of this type. Funding through the framework programmes and consultation of advisory bodies, such as the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, are more appropriate ways to further research. I will ensure that these more appropriate methods for commissioning research are used. Until the results of the research requested in Amendment 4 are available, it would be premature to proceed with implementation as requested in Amendments 8 and 11.
Amendments 5 and 25 concern exports of glass eels. This is a trade issue. Once the Community has developed internal conservation measures for eels, the Community could then develop export restrictions that would favour and protect the use of eels for populating Community inland waters. My colleague, Commissioner Mandelson, is aware of this issue and he will begin preparing export measures for glass eels once the Council has taken a decision on eel conservation. In order to ensure compatibility with the World Trade Organization rules, conservation measures within our own waters must be the first step.
Amendment 9 expresses a good idea: migration of glass eels should not be obstructed. However, I consider it would be more in the spirit of the developed approach adopted in this proposed regulation that Member States should make such choices themselves in the context of eel management measures.
Amendment 16 is no longer necessary, because I have accepted that Member States can have flexibility in the definition of eel river basins, as requested in Amendment 13.
I agree with the principle expressed in Amendment 17, but the possibility for several Member States to prepare a joint management plan is already covered in Article 8. Amendments 18 and 28 concern the targets and implementing methods to achieve eel stock recovery. Here I refer to the latest advice of the STECF. This advice tells us that it is extremely difficult to measure eel escapement and that it is preferable to focus on directly applicable measures such as a 50% reduction in the impact on eels due to fishing and a similar reduction in the effect on eels of fixed installations such as turbines and pumps. I believe we should proceed on this basis at present, but Member States should improve and refine data collection concerning eels in order to improve management targets and measures.
Amendments 19 and 20 concern financial aid for restocking and for constructing passes for eels. I support these ideas so long as restocking results in improved silver eel escapement, but as these ideas are to be included in the new European Fisheries Fund regulation, this piece of legislation is not the right place for them."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples