Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-22-Speech-1-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101122.16.1-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to say a few words about the long-term anchovy plan, but I would first like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Bilbao, and all the members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their work on this proposal. I would like to say to Mrs Bilbao that there was indeed a delay in adopting this proposal, but I would like to say that it was clear enough that the Commission has done absolutely everything to unblock the situation.
I will turn now to the third report on the Baltic technical measures. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gróbarczyk, for his very good work on the report, which was adopted unanimously. Once again, I thank the Committee on Fisheries for fully supporting it. With this proposal, we are ensuring legal continuity in respect of our policy on high grading, which was introduced in the Baltic Sea last year, as well as on fishing restrictions for some species.
I will now focus on the last report: the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ferreira, for his work, and the Committee on Fisheries as a whole.
As you know, the Commission is committed to promoting the sustainable development of aquaculture in the EU through the new aquaculture strategy. This implies a high level of environmental protection, but also the establishment of the conditions to facilitate aquaculture operations. We need to do that. Amending the regulation on the introduction of alien species in aquaculture closed facilities will certainly facilitate aquaculture activities by eliminating unnecessary administrative burdens whilst, at the same time, ensuring adequate protection for aquatic habitats. This is not all that we can do, of course, so I very much welcome the proposal by Mr Ferreira to enhance our research efforts on aquaculture. We are going to do our best by means of our budget and by means of CFP reform.
I am very pleased that the discussions in the Committee on Fisheries have resulted in a better definition of ‘closed aquaculture facility’.
I would like to stress that the initial proposal was adopted by the Commission one month before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, so we had the same problem here. The Committee on Fisheries tabled amendments aiming to bring the basic regulation into line with the new comitology provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. We considered it opportune to carry out this alignment as proposed by Parliament. On the other hand, it was necessary to modify our proposal formally to introduce such substantial amendments, and this accounts for the delay we are talking about.
To conclude, I would like once again to thank all the rapporteurs in the Committee on Fisheries for their reports and for their work on these relevant issues.
The anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay was threatened with collapse and the fishery was therefore closed in 2005. It was reopened in January 2010, just five years later. Last July, scientists confirmed that the stock was safely above precautionary limits. This allowed me to propose a TAC of over 15 000 tonnes, which is in force now. The TAC follows the harvest rules of the plan and I am happy to see that this proposal is already helping us to manage the stock properly.
Clearly, the long closure caused serious financial damage to those depending on this fishery. We absolutely need to prevent this happening again. The only way to do that is to exploit the stock consistent with maximum sustainable yield and keep a low risk of fishery closure. Our proposal shows that this can be done while, at the same time, providing sustainability for the industry. If we want to avoid closure, then we need to keep the exploitation rate at 30%.
I would like to thank the Committee on Fisheries for its support both on the substance and in relation to the delegation of powers to the Commission. I can support these amendments. I can also support those amendments related to the alignment of the proposal with the new control regulation, in force since January 2010.
There is only one exception, however. It relates to reducing the delay for notifying entry into port from four hours to one hour. This amendment changes the four-hour rule which is in the new control regulation. You know that this new control regulation has been in force since the beginning of this year. I am not in favour of amending it so soon, especially since the control regulation itself allows coastal Member States to apply specific exceptions when justified. So we have this margin. We really do not need to change this control regulation so soon but, of course, it is for you to decide.
I will turn now to the second report, the multiannual plan for horse mackerel. Let me say that Mr Gallagher, as rapporteur, and all the members of the Committee on Fisheries, have done excellent work on this proposal and I would like to pass on to you my sincere thanks for all your hard work and your constructive approach.
Western horse mackerel is by far the most important of the three horse mackerel stocks in EU waters. The stock is currently stable at a good level, which means the TAC for 2011 is almost unchanged. The annual TAC decision on this stock, which is based on recent scientific advice, does not correspond to our objective of having binding, predictable long-term management. Therefore, this plan, like other long-term plans, is dear to me because I want us to move away from the annual haggling in Council on how much can be fished. We owe it to the industry to give them more planning and stability by agreeing on long-term plans.
Your general support, both on the substance and on the delegation of powers, shows that we have the same goal. I can support your amendments and those related to the alignment of the proposal with the new control regulation, in force since January 2010. Other than this, the plan itself should not fix TAC areas, leaving the possibility of adapting these in the annual TAC decisions following the relevant scientific advice.
There is one amendment, however, that does not go in the right direction, namely, your acceptance of the Council Presidency’s compromise of around 5 000 tonnes. The figure of 5 000 tonnes is simply not science-based. How has it been decided upon? Why not 6 000 or 7 000? Having discretion to move the TAC up and down to the right levels in a long-term management strategy does not seem to me a robust approach."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples