Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-21-Speech-2-214"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090421.23.2-214"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"− Mr President, let me express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Visser, Ms Fraga and the Fisheries Committee for the draft report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures for the Atlantic and the North Sea.
Let me again express my gratitude to the rapporteur and the Committee for their work on this proposal.
This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Atlantic and the North Sea originate to a large extent from existing rules. In Community legislation the measures are spread out in different regulations: the 1998 general technical measures regulation for the Atlantic and the North Sea; the additional technical measures regulation for the recovery of cod and hake; and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are in some cases very complicated and difficult to implement and control.
The Commission adopted the proposal for a new Regulation on technical conservation measures for the Atlantic on 4 June of last year. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation of stakeholders and Member States during 2006 and 2007. It groups together all the relevant rules into one single legislative act, which will therefore improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify, clarify and streamline the various rules. Special attention has been paid to simplifying onboard inspections and reducing the costs for fishermen. There are also some additional rules to reduce discards, such as the establishment of a legal framework for real-time closures, already applied in the North Sea.
A new decision-making structure is being proposed, using a Council-level decision for the general and essential provisions and comitology for the more detailed and technical region-specific provisions, thereby avoiding micro-management at a political level. This new approach is not supported in your report, where Amendments 1, 6, 7, 25 and 26 call for Council regulations both for general and for detailed technical rules. The Commission, particularly in the framework of the CFP reform, does not want to continue with micro-management measures at a political level. However, taking into account the point made in the report regarding comitology, the Commission is ready to study any procedure which, while maintaining comitology for regional technical rules, will enable the raising at Council level of any matter which appears to be essential or political.
The Commission can partially accept Amendments 2 and 3, relating to additional illustrations of fishing gears, if needed, and to certain specific market provisions, particularly on the minimum size of species, with the aim of harmonising measures.
In line with discard policy, the Commission is proposing new rules about real-time closures and moving-on provisions for specific fisheries in order to reduce discarding practices. Both measures are considered to be efficient tools and, in order to reduce discards, are important in order to allow for a switch from rules dealing with landings to provisions on real catches. For that reason, the Commission cannot accept Amendments 4, 5, 21, 23 and 24. However, Amendment 20, only in so far as it calls for ‘quantity’ to be replaced by ‘weight’ to define the level of by-catch, is acceptable. In addition we can positively consider the second part of the amendment regarding the derogations on distance. The parameters of such a derogation, however, would have to be studied in some detail and will be laid out in the implementing regulation.
The Commission, mainly for inspection purposes, intends to implement the one-net-rule provision, which should be applicable to most European fisheries. The Commission is ready to examine possible derogations for specific fisheries, where these are justified and well argued, and where they take into account the criteria set out in Amendment 11. Such derogations should be part of the regional regulations.
The other aspects of the Commission’s proposal are very technical, with many details related to the construction and use of fishing gears in the Atlantic. I note that the rapporteur and the Fisheries Committee also addressed the very technical elements of the proposal and suggested a number of amendments, with the intention of improving the proposal. However, I must express my reservations regarding Amendments 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 22. The technical rules proposed on the basis of scientific advice have been simplified in comparison with current legislation, and will facilitate inspection on board and reduce costs for fishermen. The Commission cannot accept Amendments 18 and 19, since the provisions proposed are already in force, subsequent to a political agreement in Council on a proposal from the Commission based on scientific advice, and no new information is available to justify any modification.
I can support the idea set out in Amendment 27, and therefore, when introducing new technical measures, the Commission agrees to delay their entry into force so as to allow fishermen enough time to make the necessary adaptations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples