Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-27-Speech-3-325"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060927.25.3-325"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Maat and the Committee on Fisheries for the preparation of this report concerning the Commission’s proposal for a long-term plan for the management of plaice and sole fisheries.
Amendment 15 asks for a change in the log-book tolerance from 8% to 10%. However, the 8% figure was adopted in the Council as a common value in other long-term plans after a long discussion. I believe this figure should be retained for plaice and sole as for the other long-term plans.
The practical implementation of Amendments 16 or 17 would require that fisheries inspectors be able to distinguish between plaice or sole caught in the North Sea and fish of these species caught in other areas, a task which does not seem possible.
I can accept the principle and intentions behind Amendments 6, 19, 22 and 23, but I believe it should be implemented in a different way. The Commission is preparing an evaluation of technical measures and the regulation of fishing gears should be reviewed as soon as possible in that context.
If either plaice or sole enters into biologically very high-risk situations, the Council should be more cautious in setting fishing opportunities. This is consistent with the guiding principles of the common fisheries policy and will provide additional protection to stocks that are in their most vulnerable state. For this reason, I cannot accept Amendment 20.
In conclusion, I thank Parliament for its careful scrutiny of this document. Raising and addressing the issues I have just mentioned will, I am sure, improve the quality and efficiency of the regulation that is eventually agreed in order to achieve the objective of improving the profitability of the fishery and the state of the stocks of plaice and sole, as well as reducing discarding.
This is an important topic. Since the Commission first began discussing the long-term management of these stocks and fisheries in 2004, there has been a significant worsening of the state of these stocks. In particular, the size of the sole stock is now declining rapidly due to low numbers of incoming young fish. High fuel prices and lower catch rates have combined to create a very difficult situation for this sector and this fits very well into what I have been saying before.
The Commission’s proposal is intended to reverse this trend by leading to more efficient and more profitable fisheries and I am keen to see it adopted soon so that fisheries can begin to recover and to improve.
I thank you, therefore, for this report and I now turn to the specific amendments that you propose. I can support Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 18 and 21. However, I should mention that the Commission has already begun a debate, as requested in Amendment 4, with the regional advisory councils concerning the implementation of maximum sustainable yield management and has also already arranged for the impact assessment foreseen in Amendment 5. The final text should reflect the fact that these measures requested by Parliament have already taken place.
I can accept in principle that there could be a two-step approach in long-term plans, and that different measures would apply in situations where stocks are outside safe biological limits from those applicable in situations where stocks are within those limits. Therefore, I can accept the principles behind Amendments 1, 7, 9 and 10. However, it is important to improve the state of the stock and the finances of the industry. More consultations with the sector and the Member States concerned will be needed to refine the details, as will careful consideration of the results of the impact analysis.
I fully support provisions to revise long-term targets at periodic intervals of about five years in order to take account of changes in the environment and the ecosystems. However, I am not in a position to accept Parliament’s amendments intended to provide stability for the industry by setting TACs that are stable for three-year periods. Stability for the industry can better be provided by limiting changes to TACs between years. The North Sea RAC has revised its opinion on this topic and in its latest advice no longer advises such a measure. Therefore, I cannot accept Amendment 8, the second paragraph of Amendment 9, nor Amendments 10, 11 and 24.
Concerning Amendment 12, I can accept the widening of scope to include a wider definition of fishing effort for plaice and sole, though a more precise legal wording may be necessary. However, here again, I cannot support a proposal that effort limits be adapted only at three-yearly intervals.
Concerning Amendment 13, a legislative text for a long-term plan must define clearly how efforts should be adjusted in order to achieve the targets of the plan. Parliament’s text does not seem clear enough from a legal and technical point of view. Advice from scientific committees indicates that significant amounts of cod are caught and are discarded.
As the plaice and sole fisheries exert mortality on cod, it is necessary to keep this mortality under review and to adjust relevant efforts if necessary. This is why I am not in a position to accept Amendment 14, because it would create a non-equitable situation in comparison with other fisheries sectors that also have an impact on cod and are subject to cod-recovery measures."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples