Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060515.17.1-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late.
Mr Allister raised the question of
. The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not
. If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community.
Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation.
Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund.
If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular.
I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector.
The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself.
Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success.
Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels.
As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission.
I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples