Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-20-Speech-1-206"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081020.18.1-206"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Committee on Fisheries and especially its rapporteur Mr Busk for his thorough and well-considered report.
On Amendment 12, the text of the proposed Article 8a, paragraph 3, was indeed confusing, and we will be redrafting it to make it clearer.
On Amendment 15, the proposal concerning ring-fencing of capacity was too restrictive and could prevent reorganisation of the activities of fishing fleets. I am still discussing with Member States how to provide a suitable degree of flexibility while still ensuring that the fishing effort does not increase. Therefore, my preference is to improve the existing text rather than delete it.
On Amendment 17, I can accept the principle of effort transfers, subject to a correction factor reflecting the importance of cod catches in different sectors. But the subject is complicated and needs to be looked into further.
On Amendment 18, for legal reasons I cannot accept the deletion of the reference to the decision-making procedure. The procedure referred to is that required by the EC Treaty.
I thank you for your attention and for you constructive contributions on this file.
I am pleased that Parliament shares the Commission’s views on cod recovery. Fishing mortality is too high. The abundance of cod is too low. Even though in some areas there are more young fish in the sea than in past years, this is still an opportunity rather than a recovery.
I am also pleased that Parliament agrees on the need for recruiting the Celtic Sea as well as on the need for important cuts in fishing mortality through TAC and effort reductions. I agree with many of Parliament’s proposed amendments, but I cannot agree directly with Parliament’s texts. This is only because similar legal texts already exist or are being developed in consultation with Member States, and I do not want to pre-empt the results of technical discussions being undertaken.
Now to specifics. I accept your Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 and 16. On Amendment 2, I agree with the principle, but the powers of the Commission and Council are already established in the EC Treaty, and the role of the regional advisory councils is set out in Article 31 of the basic regulation.
On Amendment 3 regarding discard reduction, I have been working on a separate initiative. You will be aware of the Commission’s communication of spring 2007 concerning discarding. This will shortly be followed up with a proposal for a regulation.
On Amendment 7, I accept that, for stocks in very high-risk situations, a limit of 15% on TAC increases should apply. But Council should keep the option of a decrease that is larger than 15%.
On Amendment 8, I accept the inclusion of a reference to seal mortality as an example, and of considerations of climate change on cod when a review of the plan is made.
On Amendment 10, the chapter rightly refers to a limitation of fishing effort. Reference to determination would imply that fishing effort would only be measured, not managed. Therefore I cannot accept this amendment.
On Amendment 11, I can reconsider the base line for the calculation of kilowatt days. However, Member States need to be involved in this discussion."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples