Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-21-Speech-1-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070521.16.1-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, let me first start with my appreciation for the quality of this evening’s debate. I am also greatly encouraged by the report and would like to comment in particular on three of the issues.
More measures are in the pipeline. I could mention the March 2007 communication with regard to gradually reducing unwanted catches and eliminating discards in European fisheries. It involves the adoption of a progressive fishery-by-fishery discard ban and the setting of standards for maximum acceptable by-catch.
Work is also progressing on the extension of the Natura 2000 network to marine areas in coordination with DG Environment and on the fight against IUU fisheries.
On eel stocks, I intend to go back to the Council in June, and I agree that this time round the regulation needs to be adopted without any further watering down.
First of all, you welcomed the conceptual approach of the communication, which places an emphasis on the link between biodiversity loss and the decline of ecosystem services. You recognise the vital importance of healthy ecosystems for prosperity and wellbeing. You suggest that the main tenets of ecosystem services should become a fundamental goal of all EU horizontal and sectoral policies and you call on the Commission to study and make proposals for practical measures to internalise the cost of biodiversity loss.
We are already working on these matters and I would like to highlight a new initiative of the Commission and the German Presidency to prepare an economic review of the costs of biodiversity loss similar to the Stern review on the Economics of Climate Change. I believe that such a review could prove a turning point. By raising awareness of the costs of inaction, we will have an opportunity to focus political opinion on the need for unprecedented action to halt the loss of biodiversity.
Second, I would highlight your opinions on the theme of biodiversity and climate change. You stress the importance of an ecosystem approach to climate change adaptation.
Third, you recognise that the action plan is a vital tool to bring together those involved at Community and Member State levels to meet the 2010 commitments. What matters now is the extent to which this action plan is actually implemented.
On the point raised by the rapporteur with regard to alien species, let me say that work is ongoing, and if gaps are identified that warrant new legislation at Community level, then we will consider the need for proposals in due course. Indeed, in my area of responsibility, a proposal for a Council regulation on the use of alien species in aquaculture is ready for adoption.
On the issue of financing, I would like to state that in 2004 the Commission proposed that future Community co-financing for Natura 2000 should be integrated into the major financial instruments. Also, provision has been made for nature biodiversity funding in LIFE+, Community international development cooperation funds and in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. However, let me underline that the communication points out that the financial decision of the European Council in December 2005 influences the funding available under these instruments. It makes clear that Member States will need to ensure adequate funding also through own-resources.
Regarding the target of halting biodiversity loss in the EU by 2010, although time is fast approaching, achieving this target is possible, but will require accelerated implementation at both Community and Member State levels.
Regarding the points on fisheries, which is my own area of responsibility, I cannot agree more with Mr Gklavakis that we need sustainable fisheries and we need to work in this direction both in Community waters and in international oceans and seas. I would like to say in this regard that the targets and actions for biodiversity in the field of fisheries policy, as laid down in the communication, are fully consistent with the common fisheries policy and most of them are already in our work programme for the coming years. I can quote a number of examples of the common fisheries policy’s contribution to the protection of biodiversity, for example the recovery plans for several stocks of fish, the catch and fishing effort limitations, legislation to protect cetaceans against by-catch and protecting habitats, such as deep-sea coral reefs, and the Mediterranean Regulation, which was adopted last year, contains important provisions to reduce the impact of fishing on the seabed."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples