Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-09-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: none) |
|---|---|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@et5
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@sl19
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@mt15
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@cs1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@sk18
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@lt14
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@pl16
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@hu11
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
".
Arvoisa puhemies, haluan ilmaista komission ja oman tyytyväisyyteni siihen tapaan ja työn laatuun, jolla on vastattu haasteeseen kehittää sopiva hoitojärjestelmä Välimeren kalataloutta varten.
Alimman mitan ja säädösten mukaisten välineiden valikoivuuden tiukka vastaavuus on harvoin mahdollista, eritoten kun on kyse usean lajin pyytämisestä moninaisella kalustolla, kuten Välimeren tapauksessa. Lisäksi joitain alimpia mittoja on vahvistettu lajeille, joita pyydetään pääasiassa sellaisilla välineillä ja tavoilla, joita ei tässä ehdotuksessa säännellä. Lisäksi näiden lajien kohdalla valikointi on periaatteessa jätetty kalastajien vastuulle.
Tarkistuksen 28 kohdalla tämä ei ole selvää. Kappaleen 3 poistaminen tarkoittaisi, että kilohailin kalastus olisi kokonaan kielletty. Komission tarkoitus on sen sijaan pitää kilohailin kalastus selkeiden kansallisten hoitosuunnitelmien säännösten rajoissa. Komissio ei voi näin ollen hyväksyä ehdotusta.
Komissio ei voi hyväksyä tarkistusta 29, koska 30 prosentin lisäys verkkojen korkeuteen kasvattaisi pienten pelagisten lajien pyyntiponnistusta. Tämä olisi vastoin tieteellistä suositusta, jonka mukaan kyseisten kalavarojen pyyntiponnistusta ei pitäisi kasvattaa. Lisäksi koska kurenuottia voidaan käyttää pohjakalalajien pyytämiseen rannikkoalueilla, olisi vältettävä sellaisten suurten kurenuottien käyttämisen sallimista, jotka voivat osua pohjaan rannikkoalueilla meriruohon (
) kasvupaikoilla tai muiden suojeltujen lajien kasvupaikoilla.
Komissio on kuitenkin valmis säännöstelemään tämäntyyppisiä kalastusvälineitä erikseen pienten pelagisten lajien, pohjakalalajien ja tonnikalan kurenuottakalastuksen kohdalla. Kullekin luokalle olisi eri säännökset. Toivon, että tällainen hienosäätö on mahdollista neuvoston käsittelyssä.
Komissio ei voi hyväksyä tarkistuksia 30 ja 31. On laajalti tiedossa, että pyyntiponnistusten hallinnan pitäisi olla yksi pääasiallisista hallinnan välineistä Välimerellä. Tiettyjen pienimuotoiseen kalastukseen tarkoitettujen kalastusvälineiden suurimpien kokonaismittojen määrittely on yksi keino hallita pyyntiponnistuksia.
Koska valtava määrä kalastajia käyttää kyseisiä välineitä, on välttämätöntä vahvistaa suurimmat sallitut mitat. Verkkokokojen kasvattamista enää lisää halutaan välttää, koska muutoin verkoista tulee niin suuria, että ne haittaavat useiden lajien vapaata liikkumista ja vaellusta. Myös pienimuotoista kalastusta harjoittavien kalastajien pitäisi osallistua lajien suojeluun.
Komissio ei voi hyväksyä tarkistuksia 32 ja 34 monista eri syistä. Tarkistus 32 koskee neuvoston asetuksen 1039/98 liitteessä VIII olevan lajilistan lisäämistä. Lista sisältää lajeja, joita Välimeressä ei esiinny tai joita voitaan pyytää pohjaverkoilla tai ankkuroiduilla pintaverkoilla rannikkoalueilla. Ei ole siis mielekästä lisätä koko listaa tähän kohtaan. Itse asiassa, kuten mainitaan tarkistuksessa 10, 7 artiklan 2 kohdan tarkoitus on luetella ryhmä lajeja, joita pyydetään avomerellä välivedessä tai syvien merenkohtien pintavedessä. Mikäli näitä lajeja tavataan pohjaan laskettavilla verkoilla pyydetyissä saaliissa, se on merkki siitä, että kyseiset verkot ovat ajoverkkoja eivätkä pohjaan laskettavia verkkoja. Tämä säännös on ainoa tapa toimeenpanna suurten pelagisten ajoverkkojen käyttökielto. Komissio on kuitenkin valmis hyväksymään pitkänkin lajilistan, jos voidaan näyttää toteen, ettei tiettyjä lajeja voida pyytää varsinaisilla pohjaan laskettavilla verkoilla vaan ainoastaan ajoverkoilla.
Tarkistus 34, jossa ehdotetaan 18 metriä lyhyempiä aluksia koskevaa poikkeusta, heikentäisi huomattavasti suurten pelagisten ajoverkkojen käyttökiellon toimeenpanoa. Tarkistus perustuu oletukseen, että 7 artiklan 2 kohdassa on kyse tonnikalan pyytämiseen tarkoitetuista pintaverkoista. Oletus on väärä, koska kyseisiä verkkoja ei voida luokitella ankkuroiduiksi pintaverkoiksi tai pohjaan laskettaviksi verkoiksi sen mukaan, miten ne on määritelty 2 artiklan kohdissa 9 ja 12.
Yhteenvetona totean, että olen luottavainen sen suhteen, että Euroopan parlamentin avulla voimme saattaa neuvoston eteen sellaisen parannellun komission ehdotuksen, joka kelpaa neuvostolle aiempaa paremmin. Välimeren kalastajat ja heidän hyödyntämänsä meriekosysteemit kaipaavat pikaista ja tehokasta kalatalouden hoitojärjestelmää. Uuden, tehokkaamman ja varta vasten Välimeren kalataloutta ajatellen suunnitellun Euroopan unionin suojelupolitiikan käyttöönottoon liittyy myös kunnianhimoisempia suunnitelmia Välimeren yleisen kalastusneuvoston monenvälisen yhteistyön puitteissa.
Kuten hyvin tiedätte, pyyntiponnistus on kasvanut monilla alueilla, eikä hyödyntämismalli ole vieläkään tyydyttävä. Jotta Välimeren kalataloutta voitaisiin ohjata Välimeren meriekosysteemin kestävään hyödyntämiseen, Euroopan unionin on alueen suurimpana kalastusvaltana oltava hyvänä ja uskottavana esimerkkinä.
Ei voitu pitää itsestään selvänä, että Euroopan parlamentin edellisellä istuntokaudella syntynyt umpikuja voitaisiin ratkaista tämän aiheen osalta. Tämän parlamentin aloitteellisella asenteella ja sen yleisellä tietoisuudella Välimeren kalavaroista ja meriekosysteemeistä on ollut vaikutuksensa järkevän kompromissin syntymiseen. Euroopan parlamentin jäsenet ovat osoittaneet pystyvänsä kuuntelemaan sen mielipiteiden kirjon, joka tästä tärkeästä kysymyksestä on tuotu esille. Parlamentin mielipide, joka toivoakseni hyväksytään tänään, on hyvä alku neuvoston työlle. Toivon, että Euroopan toimielimet pysyvät toimeenpanemaan uuden asetuksen nopeasti Välimeren kalastajien, kalatalouden ja meriympäristön eduksi.
Tarvitaan tehokkaampaa yhteisön hoitojärjestelmää, jotta Välimeren tuotanto- ja tuottavuuspotentiaali voitaisiin kokonaan tervehdyttää erityisesti kalastajien etua ajatellen ja muiden Välimeren rikkauksista kiinnostuneiden Euroopan kansalaisten hyödyksi.
Lopuksi kiitän vielä esittelijää ja kalatalousvaliokunnan puheenjohtajaa ja jäseniä erinomaisesta yhteistyöstä tässä asiassa. Heidän ennakoivan yhteistyönsä tulos auttaa meitä Välimeren kalatalouden kestävyyden varmistamisessa.
Komissio on hyvin tyytyväinen esittelijän, jäsen Fraga Estévezin ja kalatalousvaliokunnan tiiviiseen yhteistyöhön tämän tärkeän ehdotuksen valmistelutyön aikana.
Ilokseni voin ilmoittaa, että voimme hyväksyä 22 niistä 34 tarkistuksesta, joita kalatalousvaliokunta ja muut jäsenet esittivät. Yhdeksän 22:sta hyväksytystä tarkistuksesta ja erityisesti tarkistukset 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 ja 26 kuuluivat esittelijän kanssa sovittuun ja kalatalousvaliokunnan hyväksymään kompromissipakettiin.
Kompromissiratkaisu ei ole kaikilta yksityiskohdiltaan täydellinen. Silti on pystytty saavuttamaan herkkä tasapaino melko eriävien mielipiteiden välille tinkimättä ehdotuksen tehokkuudesta.
Seuraavaksi käsittelen muita mietinnössä ehdotettuja tarkistuksia. Komissio hyväksyy myös tarkistukset 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 ja 24, joissa esitetään uusia osia joko vahvistamaan ehdotustamme tai tekemään tiettyjen toimenpiteiden käyttöönotosta asteittaisempaa. Komissio ei kuitenkaan voi hyväksyä tarkistuksia 1, 3, 4 ja 19 eikä tarkistuksia 27:sta 34:een.
Jäsenvaltioiden kansalaisten vastuun käsite on suojeltu jo yleisen kalatalouspolitiikan perusasetuksissa ja se pitäisi säilyttää tässä. Tarkistuksia 1, 3 ja 4 ei siis voida hyväksyä.
Tarkistuksissa 19 ja 33 pyydetään lisäämään säännöksiä taloudellisesta tuesta väliaikaisten kalastuskieltojen ajaksi ja sellaisille kalastajille, joihin vaikuttaa tiettyjen kalastusvälineiden käyttökielto. Komissio katsoo, etteivät nämä ehdotukset sovi tähän yhteyteen joko siksi, että näistä asioista säädetään jo yhteisön lainsäädännössä ja/tai koska tällaiset asiat tulee käsitellä Euroopan kalatalousrahastoa koskevan ehdotuksen puitteissa.
Komissio ei voi hyväksyä tarkistusta 27, joka saattaisi vähentää sen merkitystä, että vahvistetaan alin mitta lajeille, joita ehdotus asetukseksi koskee. Jos alinta mittaa ei määritellä, kalastajilla ei ole mitään syytä välttää nuorten tai alamittaisten eliöiden keskittymiä tai parantaa kalastusvälineiden tai -tapojen valikoivuutta. Yhtenäinen alin mitta olisi hyödyllinen myös kalataloustuotteiden yhteisten markkinajärjestelyjen kannalta."@fi7
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"poseidonia oceanica"7
|
| lpv:translated text |
".
Herr talman! Kommissionen och jag själv är nöjda med det som görs för att klara utmaningen att utveckla lämpliga åtgärder för att förvalta fisket i Medelhavet.
Det är sällan möjligt att åstadkomma en strikt överensstämmelse mellan minimistorlek och selektivitet hos föreskrivna redskap, särskilt inte i fiskeområden med många arter och många slags redskap, som Medelhavet. Dessutom finns det vissa fastställda minimifångster för arter som huvudsakligen fångas med fiskeredskap och metoder som inte omfattas av det här förslaget och där det i allt väsentligt är fiskarna själva som avgör selektivitetsgraden.
När det gäller ändringsförslag 28 är detta inte klart. Om punkt 3 tas bort kommer det att bli helt förbjudet att fiska småsill. Kommissionen strävar i stället efter att hantera detta fiske inom en klar rättslig ram av nationella förvaltningsplaner. Därför kan inte kommissionen godta förslaget.
Kommissionen kan inte godta ändringsförslag 29, eftersom en 30-procentig ökning av näthöjden skulle öka fiskeansträngningen för små pelagiska arter, tvärtemot forskarnas råd att inte öka fiskeansträngningen för denna resurs. Eftersom ringnotar får användas för att fånga demersala arter i kustområden bör vi dessutom undvika att tillåta stora ringnotar som kan vidröra bottnen i kustområden där det finns skyddade livsmiljöer, såsom posidoniabeväxta havsbottnar.
Kommissionen är däremot öppen för att reglera den här typen av fiskeredskap genom att skilja mellan notfiske för små pelagiska arter, demersala arter och tonfisk. Det bör finnas olika regler för varje kategori. Jag hoppas att det kommer att gå att göra en mer långtgående uppdelning i rådet.
Kommissionen kan inte godta ändringsförslagen 30 och 31. Det är allmänt erkänt att styrningen av fiskeansträngningen bör vara ett av de främsta förvaltningsredskapen i Medelhavet. Att fastställa maximala totalstorlekar för vissa småskaliga fiskeredskap är ett sätt att göra detta.
Det enorma antal fiskare som använder sådan utrustning gör det oundgängligt att fastställa maximistorlekar. Detta för att undvika ytterligare storleksökningar, som skulle leda till oöverstigliga murar av nät som hindrade åtskilliga arter från att röra sig fritt och migrera. De småskaliga fiskarna bör också bidra till bevarandet.
Kommissionen kan inte godta ändringsförslagen 32 och 34 av olika skäl. Den artförteckning i bilaga VIII till rådets förordning nr 1039/98 som man begär i ändringsförslag 32 innehåller arter som antingen inte finns i Medelhavet eller som kan fångas i bottensatta garn och förankrade flytgarn i kustområdena. Det är därför inte lämpligt att ta med hela förteckningen över arter här. Syftet med artikel 7.2 i ändringsförslag 10 är nämligen att räkna upp en grupp arter som fångas utanför kusterna på öppet hav eller nära ytan i mycket djupa vatten och som, när de återfinns i en fångst i ett bottenstående garn eller insnärjningsgarn, är ett tydligt tecken på att nätet i fråga är ett drivnät och inte ett bottensatt garn. Denna bestämmelse är enda sättet att driva igenom förbudet mot stora pelagiska drivgarn. Kommissionen är icke desto mindre öppen för att ta med en omfattande förteckning över arter om det finns bevis för att vissa arter inte kan fångas i riktiga bottensatta garn, utan bara i drivgarn.
Förslaget om ett undantag för fartyg som är mindre är 18 meter långa i ändringsförslag 34 skulle allvarligt försvaga genomförandet av förbudet mot stora pelagiska drivgarn. Ändringsförslaget bygger på antagandet att artikel 7.2 handlar om en typ av ytgarn som används för tonfisk. Detta antagande är inte korrekt, eftersom sådana nät inte kan klassificeras som de förankrade flytgarn eller bottensatta garn som definieras i artikel 2.9 respektive 2.12.
Låt mig avslutningsvis säga att jag är övertygad om att vi, med Europaparlamentets hjälp, kan lägga fram ett förbättrat kommissionsförslag för rådet, vilket bör förenkla kommissionens mellanhavanden med rådet. Alla Medelhavets fiskare och de marina ekosystem som de utnyttjar behöver snarast en effektiv förvaltning av fisket. En ny, effektivare och specialutformad EU-politik för att bevara fiskbestånden i Medelhavet kommer också att leda till att det vidtas ambitiösare åtgärder inom den multilaterala ram som Allmänna kommissionen för fiske i Medelhavet utgör.
Som ni mycket väl vet har fiskeansträngningen ökat i många områden, och utnyttjandemönstret är fortfarande inte nöjaktigt. För att styra fisket i Medelhavet mot ett hållbart utnyttjande av det marina ekosystemet där måste Europeiska unionen, som är den största fiskemakten i regionen, föregå med ett gott och trovärdigt exempel.
Det var inte givet att dödläget i den här frågan under den förra mandatperioden för Europaparlamentet skulle kunna brytas. Parlamentets vilja att verka förebyggande, liksom den allmänna medvetenheten om läget för fiskbestånden och de marina ekosystemen i Medelhavet, har bidragit till att en sund kompromiss har kunnat uppnås. Europaparlamentets ledamöter har visat att de kan lyssna på hela det spektrum av åsikter som har framförts i denna viktiga fråga. Parlamentets yttrande, som jag hoppas kommer att antas i dag, är en bra utgångspunkt för det arbete som skall göras i rådet, och jag hoppas att EU-institutionerna kommer att kunna lämna ifrån sig den nya förordningen inom kort. Det skulle vara bra både för våra fiskare och för Medelhavets fiskbestånd och marina miljö.
Det krävs ett mer verkningsfullt administrativt regelverk på EU-nivå för att återskapa hela Medelhavets produktions- och produktivitetspotential till fromma för främst av alla våra fiskare, men också för alla andra europeiska medborgare som vill tillvarata Medelhavets rikedomar.
Låt mig innan jag slutar än en gång tacka föredraganden, liksom ordföranden och ledamöterna i fiskeriutskottet, för deras utmärkta samarbete i den här frågan. Deras förekommande samarbete har verkligen gett oss ett betydande tillskott som kommer att bidra till att garantera ett hållbart fiske i Medelhavet.
Kommissionen är mycket nöjd med det nära samarbetet med föredraganden, Carmen Fraga Estévez, och ledamöterna i fiskeriutskottet under vårt arbete med detta viktiga förslag.
Det gläder mig att kunna meddela er att vi kan godta 22 av de 34 ändringsförslag som fiskeriutskottet och andra ledamöter har lagt fram. Av de 22 ändringsförslag som godtas ingick nio stycken, närmare bestämt ändringsförslagen 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 och 26, i ett kompromisspaket som vi kom överens om med föredraganden och som fiskeriutskottet godkände.
Kompromissen är inte perfekt i alla detaljer, men vi har nått en delikat balans mellan vitt skilda åsikter utan att kompromissa med förslagets genomslagskraft.
Låt mig ta upp de övriga ändringsförslag som har lagts fram till betänkandet. Kommissionen kan också godta ändringsförslagen 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 och 24, som inför nya element som antingen förstärker vårt förslag eller gör införandet av vissa åtgärder mer successivt. Kommissionen kan dock inte godta ändringsförslagen 1, 3, 4, 19 och 27–34.
Speciellt konceptet att medlemsstaternas medborgare har ett ansvar finns redan med i grundförordningen för den gemensamma fiskepolitiken och bör ligga kvar där. Därför kan vi inte godta ändringsförslagen 1, 3 och 4.
När det gäller ändringsförslagen 19 och 33, med krav på bestämmelser om ekonomiskt stöd under tillfälliga återhämtningsperioder och till fiskare som drabbas av att viss fiskeutrustning förbjuds, anser kommissionen inte att förslagen passar in här, antingen för att gemenskapslagstiftningen redan innehåller bestämmelser om detta eller för att dessa frågor skall hanteras inom ramen för förslaget om Europeiska fiskerifonden.
Kommissionen kan inte godta ändringsförslag 27, som skulle urvattna betydelsen av att fastställa en minsta fångststorlek för de arter som omfattas av förslaget till förordning. I avsaknad av en minimistorlek skulle det inte finnas något incitament för fiskare att undvika områden där ungfisk eller undermåliga organismer samlas eller att göra fiskeredskapen och förfarandena mer selektiva. Dessutom vill man på den inre marknaden för fiskeprodukter ha en harmoniserad minimistorlek."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, επιτρέψτε μου να εκφράσω την ικανοποίηση της Επιτροπής και εμού προσωπικώς για τη μέθοδο και την ποιότητα του έργου που έγινε για να αντιμετωπίσουμε την πρόκληση της ανάπτυξης επαρκών μέτρων διαχείρισης της μεσογειακής μας αλιείας.
Σπανίως είναι εφικτή μία αυστηρή αντιστοιχία ανάμεσα στο ελάχιστο μέγεθος και στην επιλεκτικότητα του καθορισμένου εξοπλισμού, ιδιαίτερα στην αλιεία πολλών ειδών και πολλών εξοπλισμών, όπως ισχύει στη Μεσόγειο. Επιπλέον, τίθενται κάποια ελάχιστα μεγέθη εκφόρτωσης για τα είδη που αλιεύονται, κυρίως με αλιευτικό εξοπλισμό και πρακτικές που δεν ρυθμίζονται σε αυτήν την πρόταση και όπου η επιλεκτικότητα επαφίεται στους ίδιους τους αλιείς.
Αυτό δεν είναι σαφές σε ό,τι αφορά την τροπολογία 28. Η διαγραφή της παραγράφου 3 θα σήμαινε ότι απαγορεύεται εντελώς η αλιεία της aphia minuta. Ο στόχος της Επιτροπής είναι, απεναντίας, να την κρατήσει μέσα σε ένα σαφές ρυθμιστικό πλαίσιο εθνικών σχεδίων διαχείρισης. Επομένως, η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να αποδεχθεί αυτήν την πρόταση.
Η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να αποδεχθεί την τροπολογία 29, διότι μία αύξηση κατά 30% στο μήκος των διχτυών θα αύξανε την αλιευτική προσπάθεια για μικρά πελαγικά είδη, παρά τις επιστημονικές συμβουλές από τις οποίες προκύπτει ότι δεν πρέπει να αυξηθεί η αλιευτική προσπάθεια για αυτό το είδος. Επιπλέον, εφόσον ενδέχεται να χρησιμοποιούνται κυκλικά δίχτυα για να αλιεύονται βυθόβια είδη σε παράκτιες περιοχές, πρέπει να μην επιτρέψουμε μεγάλα κυκλικά δίχτυα που θα μπορούσαν να φθάνουν μέχρι τον βυθό σε παράκτιες περιοχές, όπου υπάρχουν προστατευμένα φυσικά περιβάλλοντα, όπως είναι οι πυθμένες της Ποσειδωνίας.
Εντούτοις, η Επιτροπή είναι διατεθειμένη να ρυθμίσει αυτόν τον τύπο αλιευτικού εξοπλισμού κάνοντας διακρίσεις μεταξύ της αλιείας με κυκλικά δίχτυα για τα μικρά πελαγικά είδη, για τα βυθόβια είδη και για τον τόνο. Κάθε κατηγορία χωριστά πρέπει να ακολουθεί διαφορετικούς κανόνες. Ελπίζω ότι στους κόλπους του Συμβουλίου θα καταστεί εφικτή η περαιτέρω βελτίωση.
Η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να αποδεχθεί τις τροπολογίες 30 και 31. Είναι ευρέως αποδεκτό ότι η διαχείριση της αλιευτικής προσπάθειας πρέπει να είναι ένα από τα κύρια διαχειριστικά εργαλεία στη Μεσόγειο. Η καθιέρωση μέγιστων συνολικών διαστάσεων για ορισμένο αλιευτικό εξοπλισμό μικρής κλίμακας είναι ένας τρόπος αντιμετώπισης αυτού του θέματος.
Ο τεράστιος αριθμός αλιέων που χρησιμοποιούν αυτόν τον εξοπλισμό καθιστά απαραίτητο να θέσουμε μέγιστες διαστάσεις για να αποφύγουμε περαιτέρω αυξήσεις στο μέγεθος, οι οποίες θα κατέληγαν σε απόρθητα τείχη από δίχτυα, που θα εμπόδιζαν την ελεύθερη μετακίνηση και μετανάστευση διαφόρων ειδών. Πρέπει και οι μικρής κλίμακας αλιείς να συμβάλλουν στη διατήρηση.
Για διαφορετικούς λόγους η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να αποδεχθεί τις τροπολογίες 32 και 34. Ο κατάλογος των ειδών στο Παράρτημα VIII του κανονισμού 1039/98 του Συμβουλίου, όπως ζητά η τροπολογία 32, περιλαμβάνει είδη τα οποία είτε δεν απαντώνται στη Μεσόγειο είτε μπορούν να αλιευθούν με δίχτυα βυθού και στάσιμα επιπλέοντα δίχτυα σε παράκτιες περιοχές. Επομένως, δεν είναι επιθυμητό να συμπεριλάβουμε εδώ τον πλήρη κατάλογο των ειδών. Μάλιστα, η λογική του άρθρου 7 παράγραφος 2, όπως αναφέρεται στην τροπολογία 10, είναι να καταρτίσει τον κατάλογο μιας ομάδας ειδών τα οποία αλιεύονται σε μικρή απόσταση από την ακτή στο πέλαγος, ή κοντά στην επιφάνεια πολύ βαθέων υδάτων και τα οποία, όταν βρίσκονται στα αλιεύματα ενός απλαδιού βυθού ή ενός διχτυού μπλεξίματος, αποτελούν εμφανή ένδειξη ότι αυτό το δίχτυ είναι συρόμενο απλάδι και όχι δίχτυ βυθού. Αυτή η διάταξη είναι ο μόνος τρόπος για να επιβάλουμε την απαγόρευση του μεγάλου πελαγικού συρόμενου διχτυού. Παρόλα αυτά, η Επιτροπή αποδέχεται μεγάλο κατάλογο ειδών, εάν υπάρχουν τεκμήρια ότι ορισμένα είδη δεν μπορούν να αλιευθούν με πραγματικά δίχτυα βυθού, αλλά μόνο με συρόμενα δίχτυα.
Η τροπολογία 34 η οποία προτείνει μια παρέκκλιση για σκάφη μικρότερα από 18 μέτρα θα αποδυνάμωνε κατά πολύ την επιβολή της απαγόρευσης των μεγάλων συρόμενων διχτυών πελάγους. Αυτή η τροπολογία βασίζεται στην παραδοχή ότι το άρθρο 7 παράγραφος 2 αφορά έναν τύπο απλαδιού διχτυού επιφανείας για την αλιεία του τόνου. Τούτη η παραδοχή δεν είναι σωστή, αφού αυτά τα δίχτυα δεν μπορούν να ταξινομηθούν ως στάσιμα επιπλέοντα δίχτυα ή δίχτυα βυθού, όπως ορίζονται στο άρθρο 2 παράγραφος 9 και παράγραφος 12 αντίστοιχα.
Συμπερασματικά, ας μου επιτραπεί να εκφράσω την πεποίθηση ότι, με τη βοήθεια του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου μπορούμε να παρουσιάσουμε στο Συμβούλιο βελτιωμένη την πρόταση της Επιτροπής, πράγμα που θα διευκολύνει τη θέση της σε σχέση με το Συμβούλιο. Οι αλιείς της Μεσογείου και τα θαλάσσια οικοσυστήματα που αυτοί εκμεταλλεύονται χρειάζονται επείγουσα και αποτελεσματική διαχείριση της αλιείας. Η υιοθέτηση μιας νέας, αποτελεσματικότερης και δημιουργημένης επί τούτου πολιτικής διατήρησης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για τη μεσογειακή αλιεία θα ενθαρρύνει επίσης πιο φιλόδοξα βήματα στο πολυμερές πλαίσιο της Γενικής Επιτροπής Αλιείας για τη Μεσόγειο.
Όπως καλά γνωρίζετε, η αλιευτική προσπάθεια εντείνεται αδιάκοπα σε πολλές περιοχές και το πρότυπο εκμετάλλευσης εξακολουθεί να μην είναι ικανοποιητικό. Προκειμένου να καθοδηγήσει τη μεσογειακή αλιεία προς τη βιώσιμη εκμετάλλευση του μεσογειακού θαλάσσιου οικοσυστήματος, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, που είναι η μεγαλύτερη αλιευτική δύναμη της περιοχής, χρειάζεται να δώσει ένα καλό και αξιόπιστο παράδειγμα.
Δεν μπορούσε να θεωρηθεί δεδομένο ότι ήταν δυνατόν να ξεπεραστεί το αδιέξοδο γύρω από αυτό το ζήτημα, στο οποίο είχε οδηγηθεί το προηγούμενο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Η ενεργός στάση του παρόντος Κοινοβουλίου, μαζί με μία γενική επίγνωση της κατάστασης των αλιευτικών αποθεμάτων και των θαλάσσιων οικοσυστημάτων στη Μεσόγειο, συνέβαλαν στο να επιτευχθεί ένας υγιής συμβιβασμός. Τα μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου έδειξαν πως ήταν ικανοί να εισακούσουν το όλο φάσμα των απόψεων που εκφράστηκαν γύρω από αυτό το σημαντικό ζήτημα. Η γνωμοδότηση του Κοινοβουλίου, η οποία ελπίζω ότι θα εγκριθεί σήμερα, είναι καλή αφετηρία για το έργο που πρόκειται να πραγματοποιηθεί στο Συμβούλιο και ελπίζω ότι τα ευρωπαϊκά θεσμικά όργανα θα είναι σε θέση να οριστικοποιήσουν σύντομα τον νέο κανονισμό, προς το συμφέρον των αλιέων μας, της αλιείας και του θαλάσσιου περιβάλλοντος της Μεσογείου.
Χρειάζεται αποτελεσματικότερο πλαίσιο κοινοτικής διαχείρισης, για να ανακτήσουμε την πλήρη παραγωγή και την παραγωγική δυναμική της Μεσογείου, προς το συμφέρον των αλιέων μας πρώτα απ’ όλα, και επίσης άλλων ευρωπαίων πολιτών που θέλουν να επωφεληθούν από τον πλούτο της Μεσογείου.
Καταλήγοντας, ας μου επιτραπεί να ευχαριστήσω ξανά την εισηγήτρια, καθώς και τον πρόεδρο και τα μέλη της Επιτροπής Αλιείας, για την άριστη συνεργασία τους σε αυτό το ζήτημα. Η ενεργός συνεργασία τους μας έχει όντως εξασφαλίσει ένα ουσιαστικό εφόδιο, που θα βοηθήσει να διασφαλίσουμε τη βιωσιμότητα της αλιείας στη Μεσόγειο.
Η Επιτροπή εκφράζει ικανοποίηση για τη στενή συνεργασία με την εισηγήτρια κ. Fraga Estévez και τα μέλη της Επιτροπής Αλιείας, κατά την εργασία μας πάνω σε αυτήν τη σημαντική πρόταση.
Βρίσκομαι στην ευχάριστη θέση να σας ενημερώσω ότι μπορούμε να αποδεχθούμε 22 από τις 34 τροπολογίες που κατατέθηκαν από την Επιτροπή Αλιείας και άλλους βουλευτές. Εννέα τροπολογίες από τις 22 που αποδεχόμαστε, και συγκεκριμένα οι τροπολογίες 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 και 26 ήταν μέρος ενός συνολικού συμβιβασμού που βρήκε σύμφωνη την εισηγήτρια και εγκρίθηκε από την Επιτροπή Αλιείας.
Ο συμβιβασμός δεν είναι τέλειος σε όλες τις λεπτομέρειες. Παρόλα αυτά, έχει επιτευχθεί μια ισορροπία μεταξύ εντελώς διαφορετικών απόψεων χωρίς να διακινδυνεύσει η αποτελεσματικότητα της πρότασης.
Επιτρέψτε μου να στραφώ στις άλλες τροπολογίες για την υπό συζήτηση έκθεση. Η Επιτροπή μπορεί να αποδεχθεί επίσης τις τροπολογίες 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 και 24, οι οποίες εισάγουν νέα στοιχεία που είτε ενισχύουν την πρότασή μας είτε καθιστούν σταδιακό τον χρόνο της εισαγωγής ορισμένων μέτρων. Ωστόσο, η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να αποδεχθεί τις τροπολογίες 1, 3, 4, 19, και 27 έως 34.
Ειδικότερα, η έννοια της ευθύνης των πολιτών των κρατών μελών ορίζεται ήδη στον βασικό κανονισμό της κοινής αλιευτικής πολιτικής και πρέπει να διατηρηθεί εδώ. Επομένως, δεν μπορούν να γίνουν δεκτές οι τροπολογίες 1, 3 και 4.
Σε ό,τι αφορά τις τροπολογίες 19 και 33, που ζητούν να καταχωρηθούν προβλέψεις οικονομικής στήριξης για περιόδους απαγόρευσης αλιείας και για αλιείς που θίγονται από την απαγόρευση ορισμένων αλιευτικών εξοπλισμών, η Επιτροπή φρονεί ότι αυτές οι προτάσεις δεν ταιριάζουν εδώ, είτε επειδή προβλέπονται ήδη κανόνες επί αυτών των ζητημάτων στην κοινοτική νομοθεσία είτε επειδή αυτά τα ζητήματα πρόκειται να αντιμετωπισθούν στο πλαίσιο της πρότασης για το Ευρωπαϊκό ταμείο αλιείας.
Η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να αποδεχθεί την τροπολογία 27, η οποία θα υποβάθμιζε τη σημασία του καθορισμού ενός ελάχιστου μεγέθους εκφόρτωσης για τα είδη που καλύπτονται από τον προτεινόμενο κανονισμό. Ελλείψει κάποιου ελάχιστου μεγέθους εκφόρτωσης, οι αλιείς δεν θα είχαν κανένα κίνητρο να αποφεύγουν τις περιοχές συνάθροισης γόνου ή αλιευμάτων κάτω του επιτρεπτού μεγέθους, ή να βελτιώσουν την επιλεκτικότητα όσον αφορά τον αλιευτικό εξοπλισμό και τις πρακτικές αλίευσης. Επιπλέον, η κοινή αγορά για προϊόντα αλιείας ζητά ένα εναρμονισμένο ελάχιστο μέγεθος."@el10
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne udtrykke Kommissionens og min personlige tilfredshed med metoden og kvaliteten af arbejdet i forbindelse med at håndtere udfordringen med at udvikle passende forvaltningsforanstaltninger til vores fiskeri i Middelhavet.
Det er sjældent, at en fuldstændig overensstemmelse mellem mindstemål og selektivitet af obligatorisk udstyr kan lade sig gøre, især ved flerartsfiskeri, hvor der anvendes forskelligt udstyr, som det er tilfældet i Middelhavet. Desuden er der fastsat visse mindstemål for landede fiskearter, især med fiskeudstyr og praksis, som ikke er reguleret i dette forslag, og hvor selektiviteten i høj grad er op til fiskerne selv.
I ændringsforslag 28 er der samme uklarhed. Hvis stk. 3 slettes, bliver fiskeri efter
fuldstændig forbudt. Kommissionens målsætning er i stedet at holde dem inden for et helt klart regelsæt af nationale forvaltningsplaner. Kommissionen kan derfor ikke godkende forslaget.
Kommissionen kan ikke godkende ændringsforslag 29, da en stigning på 30 % af nettenes højde vil øge fiskeriindsatsen efter små pelagiske arter, hvilket er i strid med videnskabelig rådgivning om ikke at øge fiskeriindsatsen efter denne ressource. Da snurpenot desuden kan anvendes til at fange demersale arter i kystområder, bør vi undgå at tillade brugen af snurpenot, som kan røre bunden i kystområder, hvor der findes beskyttede habitater såsom posidonia-bevoksninger.
Kommissionen er dog positiv over for at regulere denne type af fiskeredskaber ved at skelne mellem fiskeri med snurpenot efter små pelagiske arter, demersale arter og tun. Hver kategori bør følge forskellige regler. Jeg håber, at der er mulighed for yderligere finpudsning i Rådet.
Kommissionen kan ikke godkende ændringsforslag 30 og 31. Det er alment anerkendt, at forvaltningen af fiskeriindsatsen bør være et af de vigtigste forvaltningsværktøjer i Middelhavet. En måde at gribe dette an på er ved at fastsætte maksimale overordnede dimensioner for visse former for redskaber, der anvendes ved småfiskeri.
Det store antal fiskere, der anvender disse redskaber, gør det uundværligt at fastsætte maksimumsdimensioner for at undgå endnu større mål, som vil medføre uovervindelige mure af net, der hindrer mange arters frie bevægelighed og migration. Småfiskere bør også bidrage til bevarelse.
Kommissionen kan ikke godkende ændringsforslag 32 og 34 af forskellige årsager. Listen over arter i bilag VIII til Rådets forordning 1039/98, som kræves i ændringsforslag 32, indeholder arter, som enten ikke findes i Middelhavet, eller som kan fanges ved bundsatte garn og forankrede flydegarn i kystområder. Det er derfor ikke ønskeligt at omfatte hele listen over arter her. Den logiske begrundelse i artikel 7, stk. 2, som nævnes i ændringsforslag 10, er at nævne en gruppe af arter, som fanges offshore pelagisk eller tæt på overfladen i meget dybe farvande, og som, når de er fanget i bundsatte garn eller indfiltringsgarn, er tydelige tegn på, at disse garn er drivgarn og ikke bundsatte garn. Denne bestemmelse er den eneste måde at håndhæve forbuddet mod store pelagiske drivgarn på. Ikke desto mindre er Kommissionen positivt indstillet over for en omfattende liste over arter, hvis der er dokumentation for, at visse arter ikke kan fanges med egentlige bundsatte garn, men kun med drivgarn.
I ændringsforslag 34 foreslås en undtagelse af fartøjer med en længde på 18 m, hvilket i høj grad vil svække håndhævelsen af forbuddet mod store pelagiske drivgarn. Ændringsforslaget er baseret på formodningen om, at artikel 7, stk. 2, er rettet mod en type overfladegarn til at fange tun med. Denne formodning er ikke korrekt, da sådanne garn ikke kan klassificeres som forankerede drivgarn eller bundsatte garn som defineret i artikel 2, stk. 9 og 12.
Til slut vil jeg gerne give udtryk for min tiltro til, at vi med hjælp fra Europa-Parlamentet kan præsentere Rådet for et forbedret forslag fra Kommissionen, som bør lette dens stilling over for Rådet. Alle fiskere i Middelhavet og de marine økosystemer, som de udnytter, har brug for effektiv fiskeriforvaltning hurtigst muligt. Ved at vedtage en ny, mere effektiv og skræddersyet EU-bevaringspolitik for fiskeri i Middelhavet hjælper vi også mere ambitiøse tiltag på vej inden for de multilaterale rammer af Den Almindelige Kommission for Fiskeri i Middelhavet.
Som det er Dem bekendt, er fiskeriindsatsen steget i mange områder, og udnyttelsesmønsteret er stadig ikke tilfredsstillende. For at føre fiskeriet i Middelhavet i retning af en bæredygtig udnyttelse af de marine økosystemer i Middelhavet skal EU, som er den største fiskerimagt i området, foregå med et godt og troværdigt eksempel.
Det var ikke givet, at vi kunne overvinde det tidligere Europa-Parlaments hårdknude på dette område. Parlamentets proaktive holdning og den generelle opmærksomhed omkring tilstanden for fiskeressourcerne og de marine økosystemer i Middelhavet har bidraget til et solidt kompromis. Parlamentsmedlemmerne har vist deres evne til at lytte til de mange synspunkter, der er givet udtryk for i forbindelse med dette vigtige spørgsmål. Parlamentets holdning, som jeg håber bliver vedtaget i dag, er et godt udgangspunkt for det arbejde, der skal udføres i Rådet, og jeg håber, at EU-institutionerne snart kommer med en ny forordning til gavn for vores fiskere og for fiskeriet og det marine miljø i Middelhavet.
Der er brug for mere effektive EU-forvaltningsrammer, hvis vi vil genvinde Middelhavets fulde produktion og produktivitetspotentiale først og fremmest i vores fiskeres interesser, men også til gavn for andre europæiske borgere, der ønsker at nyde godt af Middelhavets rigdom.
Som afslutning på mit indlæg vil jeg gerne endnu en gang takke ordføreren samt formanden og medlemmerne af Fiskeriudvalget for deres fortrinlige samarbejde i denne sag. Deres proaktive samarbejde har virkelig givet os betydelige input, som vil være med til at sikre en bæredygtig udnyttelse af fiskeressourcerne i Middelhavet.
Kommissionen er meget tilfreds med det tætte samarbejde med ordføreren, fru Fraga Estévez, og medlemmerne af Fiskeriudvalget under vores arbejde med dette meget vigtige forslag.
Jeg er glad for at kunne oplyse Dem om, at vi kan godkende 22 ud af 34 ændringsforslag, der er stillet af Fiskeriudvalget og andre medlemmer. Ni ændringsforslag ud af de 22 godkendte, især ændringsforslag 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 og 26, var en del af en kompromispakke efter aftale med ordføreren og godkendt af Fiskeriudvalget.
Kompromiset er ikke perfekt på detailniveau. Der er ikke desto mindre opnået en hårfin balance mellem ret så forskellige synspunkter, uden at forslagets effektivitet er bragt i fare.
Lad mig gå videre til de andre ændringsforslag, der er stillet til betænkningen. Kommissionen kan også godkende ændringsforslag 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 og 24, hvor nye elementer indføres, der enten forstærker vores forslag eller gør tidspunktet for indførslen af visse foranstaltninger mere gradvis. Kommissionen kan dog ikke godkende ændringsforslag 1, 3, 4, 19 samt 27-34.
Begrebet om EU-borgernes ansvar er allerede indeholdt i grundforordningen for den fælles fiskeripolitik og bør fastholdes her. Ændringsforslag 1, 3 og 4 kan derfor ikke godkendes.
Med hensyn til ændringsforslag 19 og 33, hvori det foreslås at indsætte bestemmelser om finansiel støtte til midlertidige fiskeriforbud og til fiskere, der berøres af forbuddet mod anvendelse af bestemte fiskeredskaber, mener Kommissionen ikke, at disse forslag er hensigtsmæssige her, enten fordi fællesskabsretten allerede indeholder bestemmelser om disse forhold, og/eller fordi disse forhold behandles inden for rammerne af forslaget om Den Europæiske Fiskerifond.
Kommissionen kan ikke godkende ændringsforslag 27, som kan svække betydningen af at fastsætte et mindstemål for landede fiskearter, der er omfattet af forslaget til forordning. Hvis der ikke findes et sådant mindstemål, ville fiskerne ikke have noget incitament til at undgå områder med sammenlægning af unge individer eller små organismer eller til at forbedre selektiviteten med hensyn til fiskeredskaber og praksis. Det fælles marked for fiskerivarer opfordrer desuden til at indføre en harmoniseret minimumsstørrelse."@da2
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"EN"10
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil graag, zowel namens de Commissie als op persoonlijke titel, mijn tevredenheid uitspreken over de methode en de kwaliteit van het werk dat is verricht om het hoofd te bieden aan de uitdaging van het ontwikkelen van adequate beheersmaatregelen voor onze visserij in de Middellandse Zee.
Een strikte overeenstemming tussen minimummaat en de selectiviteit van de voorgeschreven uitrusting is zelden mogelijk, met name als er met verschillende vistuigen wordt gevist op meerdere soorten, zoals het geval is in de Middellandse Zee. Daarnaast zijn bepaalde minimummaten bij aanvoer vastgesteld voor soorten die voornamelijk worden gevangen met vistuig en vismethoden die in dit voorstel niet worden gereguleerd en waarbij de selectiviteit feitelijk aan de vissers zelf wordt overgelaten.
Voor amendement 28 geldt dat dit niet duidelijk is. Het schrappen van paragraaf 3 zou betekenen dat het vissen op jonge haring helemaal verboden zou worden. Het doel van de Commissie is echter om deze vorm van visserij te laten plaatsvinden binnen een duidelijk regelgevingskader van nationale beheersplannen. De Commissie kan dit voorstel derhalve niet aanvaarden.
De Commissie kan niet instemmen met amendement 29, omdat een stijging van de hoogte van de netten met 30 procent de visserij-inspanning voor kleine pelagische soorten zou vergroten, terwijl op basis van wetenschappelijke bewijzen juist wordt opgeroepen af te zien van het vergroten van de visserij-inspanning voor dit bestand. Hoewel ringzegens mogen worden gebruikt voor het vangen van bodemsoorten in kustgebieden, moeten we voorkomen dat we toestemming geven voor het gebruik van grote ringzegens die de bodem zouden kunnen raken in kustgebieden met beschermde habitats, zoals zeegrasvelden.
De Commissie staat echter open voor het reguleren van dit type vistuig door te differentiëren tussen de ringzegenvisserij op kleine pelagische soorten, bodemsoorten en tonijn. Voor elke categorie zouden verschillende regels moeten gelden. Ik hoop dat verdere verfijning binnen de Raad mogelijk zal zijn.
De Commissie kan de amendementen 30 en 31 niet aanvaarden. Er wordt algemeen erkend dat het beheren van de visserij-inspanning een van de voornaamste beheersinstrumenten in de Middellandse Zee zou moeten zijn. Het vaststellen van maximale totale afmetingen voor bepaalde soorten vistuig voor kleinschalige visserij is een manier om dit aan te pakken.
Vanwege de enorme aantallen vissers die gebruik maken van dit vistuig is het essentieel maximumafmetingen vast te stellen om te voorkomen dat netten nog groter worden, waardoor onoverkomelijke muren van netten zouden ontstaan die de bewegingsvrijheid en migratie van verschillende vissoorten zouden belemmeren. Ook kleinschalige vissers dienen bij te dragen tot de instandhouding van visbestanden.
De Commissie kan om verschillende redenen niet instemmen met de amendementen 32 en 34. Op de lijst met soorten in bijlage VIII bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1039/98 van de Raad, waarom in amendement 32 wordt verzocht, staan soorten die ofwel niet voorkomen in de Middellandse Zee ofwel kunnen worden gevangen met staande of drijvende kieuwnetten in kustgebieden. Het is dan ook onwenselijk om de volledige lijst met soorten hier op te nemen. In feite is de grondgedachte achter artikel 7, lid 2, zoals vermeld in amendement 10, het op een lijst plaatsen van een aantal soorten die gevangen worden uit de kust in middeldiep water, of aan het oppervlak van zeer diepe wateren, en uit de aanwezigheid waarvan in een staand kieuwnet of warnet duidelijk kan worden afgeleid dat een dergelijk net in feite een drijfnet is in plaats van een staand net. Deze bepaling is de enige manier om het verbod op drijfnetten voor de visserij op grote pelagische soorten te handhaven. Desalniettemin staat de Commissie open voor een langere lijst van soorten, indien er bewijzen zijn dat bepaalde soorten niet kunnen worden gevangen met echte staande netten, maar alleen met drijfnetten.
Amendement 34, waarin wordt voorgesteld een uitzondering te maken voor vaartuigen kleiner dan achttien meter, zou de handhaving van het verbod op drijfnetten voor de visserij op grote pelagische soorten ernstig belemmeren. Dit amendement is gebaseerd op de veronderstelling dat artikel 7, lid 2 betrekking heeft op een type kieuwnet dat bedoeld is voor de tonijnvisserij. Deze veronderstelling is echter niet juist, aangezien dergelijke netten niet kunnen worden aangemerkt als een “geankerd drijvend kieuwnet” of “bodemnet” zoals gedefinieerd in artikel 2, lid 9 respectievelijk lid 12.
Tot besluit wil ik het vertrouwen uitspreken dat we, met de hulp van het Europees Parlement, een beter Commissievoorstel zullen kunnen voorleggen aan de Raad, waardoor het standpunt van de Commissie eenvoudiger te verdedigen zal zijn tegenover de Raad. Alle vissers in de Middellandse Zee en de mariene ecosystemen die zij exploiteren hebben dringend behoefte aan een doeltreffend visserijbeheer. De goedkeuring van een nieuw, doeltreffend en specifiek toegesneden instandhoudingsbeleid van de Europese Unie voor de visserij in de Middellandse Zee zal tevens ambitieuzere stappen aanmoedigen in het multilaterale kader van de Algemene Visserijraad voor de Middellandse Zee (GFCM).
Zoals u weet, is de visserij-inspanning in veel gebieden toegenomen en stemt het exploitatiepatroon nog altijd niet tot tevredenheid. Om de visserij in de Middellandse Zee op weg te helpen naar duurzame exploitatie van het marine ecosysteem in de zee, moet de Europese Unie, met de grootse vissersvloot in de regio, een goed en geloofwaardig voorbeeld stellen.
Het was allerminst zeker of de impasse die tijdens de vorige zittingsperiode van het Parlement was ontstaan in deze zaak doorbroken zou kunnen worden. De proactieve houding van dit Parlement, in combinatie met een algemeen besef van de situatie waarin de visbestanden en mariene ecosystemen in de Middellandse Zee verkeren, heeft bijgedragen tot het bereiken van een solide compromis. De leden van het Europees Parlement hebben getoond te kunnen luisteren naar het hele scala aan standpunten dat is verwoord over deze belangrijke kwestie. Het advies van het Parlement, dat hier vandaag hopelijk zal worden aangenomen, is een goed uitgangspunt voor het werk dat in de Raad moet worden verricht en ik hoop dat de Europese instellingen binnenkort de nieuwe verordening zullen kunnen presenteren, in het belang van onze vissers en in het belang van de visserij en het mariene milieu van de Middellandse Zee.
Er is een doeltreffender communautair beheerskader nodig om het volledige productie- en productiviteitspotentieel van de Middellandse Zee te herstellen, allereerst in het belang van onze vissers, maar ook in het belang van andere Europese burgers die willen blijven profiteren van de rijkdom van de Middellandse Zee.
Tot besluit van mijn toespraak wil ik de rapporteur nogmaals bedanken, evenals de voorzitter en de leden van de Commissie visserij, voor hun uitstekende samenwerking in verband met deze kwestie. Door hun proactieve samenwerking hebben zij een aanzienlijke inbreng gehad die zal bijdragen tot het waarborgen van de duurzaamheid van de visserij in de Middellandse Zee.
De Commissie is zeer tevreden over de nauwe samenwerking met de rapporteur, mevrouw Fraga Estévez, en de leden van de Commissie visserij tijdens ons werk in verband met dit belangrijke voorstel.
Het doet mij plezier u te kunnen mededelen dat wij van de 34 amendementen die zijn ingediend door de Commissie visserij en andere afgevaardigden, er 22 kunnen aanvaarden. Negen van de 22 aanvaarde amendementen, te weten de amendementen 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 en 26 maakten deel uit van een compromispakket dat werd overeengekomen met de rapporteur en dat is goedgekeurd door de Commissie visserij.
Het compromis is niet tot in alle details perfect. Niettemin is er een delicaat evenwicht gevonden tussen zeer uiteenlopende standpunten, zonder afbreuk te doen aan de doeltreffendheid van het voorstel.
Dan kom ik nu toe aan de andere amendementen die zijn ingediend op het onderhavige verslag. De Commissie kan ook de amendementen 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 en 24 aanvaarden, waarin nieuwe elementen worden geïntroduceerd die ons voorstel ofwel versterken of de invoering van bepaalde maatregelen geleidelijker laten verlopen. De Commissie kan de amendementen 1, 3, 4, 19 en 27 tot en met 34 echter niet aanvaarden.
Met name het concept van de verantwoordelijkheid van onderdanen van de lidstaten is reeds verankerd in de kaderverordening voor het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid en dient hier gehandhaafd te blijven. De amendementen 1, 3 en 4 kunnen derhalve niet worden aanvaard.
Met betrekking tot de amendementen 19 en 33, waarin verzocht wordt om het opnemen van bepalingen inzake financiële ondersteuning voor tijdelijke visverboden en voor vissers die hinder ondervinden van het verbod op bepaalde soorten vistuig, is de Commissie van mening dat deze voorstellen hier niet gepast zijn, omdat er al regels voor deze zaken bestaan uit hoofde van de Gemeenschapswetgeving en/of omdat deze kwesties behandeld dienen te worden in het kader van het voorstel over het Europees Visserijfonds.
De Commissie kan niet instemmen met amendement 27, aangezien het afbreuk zou kunnen doen aan het belang van het vaststellen van een minimummaat bij aanvoer voor de soorten die onder de voorgestelde verordening vallen. Zonder minimummaat zouden vissers niet worden gestimuleerd om gebieden te mijden waar jonge vissen of ondermaatse exemplaren zich verzamelen, noch om de selectiviteit met betrekking tot vistuig en vismethoden te verbeteren. Bovendien vraagt de gemeenschappelijke markt voor visproducten om een geharmoniseerde minimummaat."@nl3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@lv13
|
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@en4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
| lpv:translated text |
".
Señor Presidente, permítame expresar a la Comisión mi satisfacción personal por el método y la calidad del trabajo realizado para abordar el reto que supone desarrollar medidas de gestión apropiadas para nuestra pesca mediterránea.
Rara vez es posible una correspondencia estricta entre talla mínima y selectividad de los equipos preceptivos, especialmente en pesquerías en que se capturan varias especies y se emplean varios artes, como es el caso del Mediterráneo. Además se fijan algunas tallas mínimas de desembarque para las especies capturadas, sobre todo para artes y prácticas de pesca que no están regulados en esta propuesta y en que la selectividad depende esencialmente de los propios pescadores.
Por lo que respecta a la enmienda 28, no está clara. Eliminar el apartado 3 significaría la prohibición total de la pesca del salmonete. En cambio, el objetivo de la Comisión es mantenerla dentro de un claro marco reglamentario de plantes de gestión nacionales. Por lo tanto, la Comisión no puede aceptar esta propuesta.
La Comisión no puede aceptar la enmienda 29, puesto que un incremento del 30 % de la altura de las redes aumentaría el esfuerzo pesquero para especies pelágicas pequeñas, contra los consejos científicos que propugnan que no se incremente el esfuerzo pesquero respecto a este recurso. Además, puesto que se pueden utilizar redes de cerco para capturar especies demersales en zonas costeras, deberíamos evitar que se autoricen redes de cerco grandes que podrían tocar el fondo de zonas costeras donde existen hábitats protegidos, como los criaderos de Posidonia.
No obstante, la Comisión está abierta a la regulación de este tipo de artes de pesca diferenciando entre pesca con redes de cerco de especies pelágicas pequeñas, especies demersales y atún. Cada categoría debería regirse por normas distintas. Espero que sea posible afinar más las posturas en el Consejo.
La Comisión no puede aceptar las enmiendas 30 y 31. Es un hecho ampliamente reconocido que la gestión del esfuerzo pesquero debería ser una de las principales herramientas de gestión en el Mediterráneo. El establecimiento de los tamaños globales máximos para ciertos artes de pesca a pequeña escala es un modo de abordar esta cuestión.
El gran número de pescadores que utilizan estos artes exige que se fijen tamaños máximos para evitar mayores incrementos, que ocasionarían muros de redes insalvables que impedirían la libre circulación y la migración de varias especies. Los pequeños pescadores también deberían contribuir a la conservación.
La Comisión no puede aceptar las enmiendas 32 a 34 por diversas razones. La lista de especies del anexo VIII al Reglamento nº 1039/98 del Consejo que reclama la enmienda 32 incluye especies que o bien no están presentes en el Mediterráneo, o bien pueden capturarse mediante redes de fondo y redes de superficie ancladas en zonas costeras. Por lo tanto, no es conveniente incluir aquí la lista completa de especies. De hecho, la lógica del apartado 2 del artículo 7 mencionado en la enmienda 10 es indicar un grupo de especies que se capturan en aguas de profundidad media o cerca de la superficie de aguas muy profundas y que, cuando aparecen en la captura de una red de enmalle de fondo o redes enredadas, son señales claras de que dichas redes son de deriva y no redes de fondo. Esta disposición es el único modo de hacer que se cumpla la prohibición de la red de deriva pelágica. No obstante, la Comisión está abierta a una larga lista de especies si hay pruebas de que ciertas especies no pueden capturarse mediante verdaderas redes de fondo, sino solo mediante redes de deriva.
La enmienda 34 sugiere que una derogación para los buques inferiores a 18 metros menoscabaría gravemente el cumplimiento de la prohibición de las grandes redes de deriva pelágicas. Esta enmienda se basa en el supuesto de que el apartado 2 del artículo 7 trata un tipo de red de enmalle superficial destinada al atún. Este supuesto no es correcto, puesto que dichas redes no pueden calificarse de redes de superficie ancladas o redes de fondo tal y como se definen en los apartados 9 y 12 del artículo 2, respectivamente.
En conclusión, permítanme expresar la confianza de que, con la ayuda del Parlamento Europeo, podemos presentar al Consejo una propuesta mejorada de la Comisión, que debería favorecer sus posibilidades en el Consejo. Todos los pescadores mediterráneos y los ecosistemas marinos que explotan necesitan una gestión urgente y eficaz de la pesca. La adopción de una nueva política de conservación de la Unión Europea más eficaz y hecha a medida de la pesca mediterránea también favorecerá pasos más ambiciosos en el marco multilateral de la Comisión General de Pesca para el Mediterráneo.
Como saben muy bien, el esfuerzo pesquero ha aumentado en muchas zonas y el modelo de explotación todavía no es satisfactorio. Con el fin de conducir la pesca mediterránea hacia una explotación sostenible del ecosistema marino mediterráneo, la Unión Europea, que es la mayor potencia pesquera de la región, necesita dar un ejemplo positivo y creíble.
No se podía dar por hecho que pudiera superarse el punto muerto en el que estaba esta cuestión durante la anterior legislatura. La iniciativa de este Parlamento, junto con un conocimiento general del estado de los recursos pesqueros y ecosistemas marinos en el Mediterráneo, ha contribuido al logro de una buena solución de compromiso. Los diputados al Parlamento Europeo han demostrado su capacidad para escuchar las distintas opiniones que se han expresado sobre esta cuestión tan importante. El dictamen del Parlamento, que espero que se apruebe hoy, es un buen punto de partida para el trabajo que hay que llevar a cabo en el Consejo, y espero que las instituciones europeas puedan presentar el nuevo reglamento en breve, en interés de nuestros pescadores de la pesca y el ecosistema marino del Mediterráneo.
Se necesita un marco de gestión comunitaria más eficaz para recuperar la totalidad de la producción y del potencial de productividad del Mediterráneo en interés de todos nuestros pescadores, en primer lugar, y también de otros ciudadanos europeos que quieren beneficiarse de la riqueza del Mediterráneo.
Para concluir mi intervención, permítanme una vez más dar las gracias a la ponente, al igual que al presidente y los miembros de la Comisión de Pesca, por su excelente cooperación en esta cuestión. Su cooperación activa ha supuesto una aportación sustancial que ayudará a garantizar la sostenibilidad de las pesquerías en el Mediterráneo.
La Comisión está muy satisfecha con la estrecha cooperación de la ponente, la señora Fraga Estévez, y los miembros de la Comisión de Pesca durante nuestro trabajo en torno a esta importante propuesta.
Me complace poder informarles de que podemos aceptar 22 de las 34 enmiendas presentadas por la Comisión de Pesca y otros diputados. Nueve de las 22 enmiendas aceptadas, concretamente las enmiendas 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 y 26, formaban parte de un paquete de compromiso acordado con la ponente y aprobado por la Comisión de Pesca.
El compromiso no es perfecto en todos sus detalles. No obstante, se ha llegado a un delicado equilibrio de puntos de vista bastante diferentes sin comprometer la efectividad de la propuesta.
Permítanme comentar las demás enmiendas presentadas al informe que tenemos ante nosotros. La Comisión también puede aceptar las enmiendas 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 y 24, que introducen nuevos elementos que bien reforzarán nuestra propuesta, bien establecerán un calendario más gradual de aplicación de ciertas medidas. Sin embargo, la Comisión no puede aceptar las enmiendas 1, 3, 4, 19 y 27 a 34.
En particular, el concepto de responsabilidad de los nacionales de los Estados miembros ya está consagrado en el reglamento básico de la política pesquera común y debería permanecer ahí. Por lo tanto, no son aceptables las enmiendas 1, 3 y 4.
Respecto a las enmiendas 19 a 33, que solicitan la introducción de disposiciones de apoyo financiero para las prohibiciones temporales de pesca y para los pescadores afectados por la prohibición de ciertas artes de pesca, la Comisión cree que estas propuestas no son apropiadas en este caso, bien porque ya existen reglas a este respecto en la legislación comunitaria, bien porque estas cuestiones han de tratarse en el marco de la propuesta de fondo para la pesca europea.
La Comisión no puede aceptar la enmienda 27, que podría diluir el significado del establecimiento de una talla mínima de desembarque para las especies incluidas en el reglamento propuesto. En ausencia de una talla mínima no habría ningún incentivo para que los pescadores evitaran las zonas de concentración de peces jóvenes u organismos de menor tamaño o para que mejoraran la selectividad respecto a los artes y las prácticas de pesca. Además, el mercado común de productos pesqueros exige una talla mínima armonizada."@es20
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Senhor Presidente, cumpre-me manifestar a satisfação da Comissão, bem como a minha satisfação pessoal, pelo método e a qualidade do trabalho empreendido tendo em vista responder ao desafio que a necessidade de desenvolver medidas adequadas de gestão das operações de pesca no mar Mediterrâneo constitui.
No que respeita às alterações 19 e 33, que visam a inserção de disposições para a concessão de apoio financeiro em caso de situações de proibição temporária de pesca ou para pescadores afectados pela proibição de determinadas artes de pesca, a Comissão considera que tais propostas não se adequam à temática em apreço, isto porque já existem regras na matéria ao abrigo da legislação comunitária e/ou porque se trata de questões de que a proposta relativa ao fundo europeu das pescas se ocupará.
A Comissão não está em posição de aceitar a alteração 27, pois esta tenderia a diluir a importância de fixar dimensões mínimas de desembarque para as espécies contempladas na proposta de regulamento. Na ausência de um tamanho mínimo de desembarque, não haveria qualquer incentivo para os pescadores evitarem as zonas de agregação de juvenis ou de organismos subdimensionados, nem para melhorarem a capacidade de selectividade das suas artes e métodos de pesca. Além disso, a organização comum do mercado no sector dos produtos da pesca exige a harmonização no tocante às dimensões mínimas do pescado desembarcado.
Raramente se consegue uma rigorosa correspondência entre o tamanho mínimo e a selectividade do equipamento prescrito, sobretudo no caso de pescarias multiespécies e multiartes, como se verifica no mar Mediterrâneo. Acresce que alguns dos tamanhos mínimos de desembarque fixados se referem a espécies capturadas sobretudo com recurso a artes e práticas de pesca que não se encontram regulamentadas nesta proposta, e em relação às quais a selectividade é deixada essencialmente ao critério dos próprios pescadores.
Em relação à alteração 28, considero que não é suficientemente clara. A supressão do nº 3 significaria que as pescarias de salmão pequeno seriam totalmente proibidas. O que a Comissão pretende, em lugar disso, é que essas pescarias sejam inscritas num inequívoco quadro regulamentar de planos de gestão nacionais. A Comissão não pode, por conseguinte, aceitar a proposta constante na referida alteração.
A Comissão não está em posição de aceitar a alteração 29, pois um aumento de 30% na altura das redes resultaria num aumento do esforço de pesca dirigido às pequenas espécies pelágicas, contrariando o parecer científico segundo o qual importa assegurar que não haja qualquer aumento do esforço de pesca dirigido àquele recurso. Além disso, uma vez que as redes de cerco com retenida podem ser utilizadas na captura de espécies demersais em águas costeiras, devemos evitar autorizar a utilização de grandes redes de cerco com retenida, já que estas podem tocar no fundo das águas costeiras, onde existem habitats protegidos, como é o caso das pradarias de posidónias.
A Comissão está, todavia, aberta à possibilidade de regulamentar este tipo de arte de pesca, estabelecendo a devida diferenciação entre as pescarias com redes de cerco com retenida dirigidas a pequenas espécies pelágicas, a espécies demersais ou a tunídeos. Cada categoria deverá obedecer a diferentes regras. Espero que esta questão possa ser um pouco mais trabalhada no seio do Conselho.
A Comissão não pode aceitar as alterações 30 e 31. É amplamente reconhecido que a gestão do esforço de pesca deve constituir um dos principais instrumentos de gestão das pescas no Mediterrâneo. A fixação de dimensões máximas para determinadas artes de pesca artesanal é uma das formas de conseguir tal objectivo.
O elevado número de pescadores que utiliza tais artes torna indispensável fixar dimensões máximas, a fim de evitar ulteriores aumentos de dimensão, que resultariam em paredes insuperáveis de redes, impeditivas da livre deslocação e da migração de determinadas espécies. Os pescadores que exercem a pesca artesanal devem, também eles, contribuir para a conservação dos recursos haliêuticos.
A Comissão não pode aceitar as alterações 32 e 34, e isto por diversas razões. A lista de espécies que a alteração 32 pretende seja inscrita no Anexo VIII do Regulamento nº 1039/98 do Conselho contém espécies que, ou não existem no Mediterrâneo, ou podem ser capturadas com recurso a redes fundeadas ou a redes flutuantes ancoradas em águas costeiras. Por conseguinte, é indesejável incluir no referido anexo a lista completa de espécies. Com efeito, a lógica subjacente ao nº 2 do artigo 7º, conforme se pode ler na alteração 10, é enumerar um conjunto de espécies cuja pesca se processa ao largo em águas de profundidade média, ou junto à superfície em águas muito profundas, e que, quando figuram entre o pescado capturado com uma rede de emalhar ou uma rede de enredar fundeada, constituem indícios inequívocos de que tal rede é uma rede de deriva e não uma rede fundeada. Esta disposição constitui a única forma de impor a proibição de utilizar a rede de deriva para a captura de espécies pelágicas de grande dimensão. A Comissão admite, porém, vir a aceitar uma lista mais vasta de espécies, contanto que fique provado que determinadas espécies não podem ser capturadas com verdadeiras redes fundeadas, mas tão só com redes de deriva.
A alteração 34, que propõe uma derrogação para os navios de comprimento inferior a 18 metros, prejudicaria seriamente a imposição da proibição das redes de deriva para a pesca dos grandes pelágicos. Esta alteração baseia-se no pressuposto de que o nº 2 do artigo 7º diz respeito a um determinado tipo de rede de emalhar de superfície destinada à pesca do atum. Tal pressuposto não está correcto, pois essas redes não podem ser classificadas como redes flutuantes ancoradas e redes fundeadas, na acepção, respectivamente, dos nºs 9 e 12 do artigo 2º.
Em suma, estou confiante em que, com a ajuda do Parlamento Europeu, poderemos apresentar ao Conselho uma proposta da Comissão melhorada, o que contribuirá certamente para facilitar a posição desta última face ao Conselho. Todos os pescadores mediterrânicos e os ecossistemas marinhos que eles exploram necessitam urgentemente de uma eficaz gestão da actividade da pesca naquele mar. A adopção de uma política europeia de conservação dos recursos inovadora, mais eficaz e especificamente adaptada às pescarias no Mediterrâneo incentivará também a adopção de medidas mais ambiciosas no quadro multilateral da Comissão Geral das Pescas do Mediterrâneo.
Como todos sabem, o esforço de pesca tem vindo a aumentar em numerosas zonas e o padrão de exploração dos recursos haliêuticos continua a não ser satisfatório. Em ordem a orientar as pescarias no Mediterrâneo no sentido da exploração sustentável do ecossistema marinho naquele mar, a União Europeia, que é a maior potência piscatória na região, tem de dar um bom exemplo, assente em princípios credíveis.
Impõe-se um quadro de gestão comunitária mais eficiente, a fim de recuperar todo o potencial de produção e produtividade do Mediterrâneo, no interesse, primeiramente, dos nossos trabalhadores do sector da pesca, e em segundo lugar dos outros cidadãos europeus que desejam beneficiar das riquezas do Mediterrâneo.
A terminar a minha intervenção, gostaria uma vez mais de agradecer à relatora, bem como ao presidente e aos membros da Comissão das Pescas, a sua excelente colaboração no tratamento deste assunto. A sua cooperação pró-activa constituiu, efectivamente, um contributo inestimável, que ajudará a assegurar a sustentabilidade das pescas no Mediterrâneo.
Não era de todo em todo evidente que se conseguiria superar o impasse surgido em torno desta questão durante a anterior legislatura do Parlamento Europeu. A atitude pró-activa deste Parlamento, a par de uma tomada de consciência generalizada quanto ao estado de conservação dos recursos haliêuticos e dos ecossistemas marinhos nas águas do Mediterrâneo, contribuiu para a obtenção de uma boa solução de compromisso. Os membros do Parlamento Europeu demonstraram a sua capacidade para atender à diversidade de pontos de vista expressa em relação a esta importante questão. O parecer do Parlamento, que espero mereça hoje a aprovação da Assembleia, é um bom ponto de partida para o trabalho a desenvolver a nível do Conselho, e faço votos por que as Instituições europeias possam apresentar a nova regulamentação num futuro não muito distante, no interesse tanto dos nossos pescadores como dos recursos haliêuticos e do ambiente marinho no Mediterrâneo.
A Comissão congratula-se vivamente com a estreita colaboração prestada, não só pela relatora, senhora deputada Fraga Estévez, como pelos restantes membros da Comissão das Pescas, durante os trabalhos em torno desta importante proposta.
Apraz-me informar a Assembleia de que a Comissão está em posição de aceitar 22 das 34 alterações apresentadas pela Comissão das Pescas e por outros deputados. 9 das 22 alterações aceites, nomeadamente, as alterações 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 e 26, fazem parte de um conjunto de medidas de compromisso estabelecidas de comum acordo com a relatora e aprovadas pela Comissão das Pescas.
O compromisso alcançado não constitui uma solução perfeita em todos os aspectos. Permitiu, contudo, obter um delicado equilíbrio entre pontos de vista bastante diferentes, sem comprometer a eficácia da proposta.
Vejamos agora as outras alterações ao relatório que temos diante de nós. A Comissão pode igualmente aceitar as alterações 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 e 24, as quais visam introduzir novos elementos que, ou reforçam a nossa proposta, ou se traduzem numa calendarização mais gradual das medidas a aplicar. A Comissão não pode, no entanto, aceitar as alterações 1, 3, 4, 19 e 27 a 34.
Em especial, o conceito de responsabilidade de nacionais dos Estados-Membros já se encontra consagrado na regulamentação de base da política comum da pesca, e é aí que deve permanecer. As alterações 1, 3 e 4 não são, por conseguinte, aceitáveis."@pt17
|
| lpv:translated text |
".
Herr Präsident, ich darf Ihnen gegenüber die Genugtuung der Kommission und meine eigene Genugtuung über die Methode und die Qualität der geleisteten Arbeit, um der Herausforderung der Entwicklung geeigneter Managementmaßnahmen für unsere Mittelmeerfischerei zu begegnen, zum Ausdruck bringen.
Eine enge Beziehung zwischen der Mindestgröße und der Selektivität des vorgeschriebenen Fanggeräts ist kaum möglich, vor allem dort nicht, wo viele Arten mit vielerlei Art Gerät gefischt werden, wie es im Mittelmeer der Fall ist. Außerdem sind einige Mindestanlandungsgrößen für Arten festgelegt, die vorwiegend mit Fanggerät und mit Fangpraktiken gefischt werden, für die es in diesem Vorschlag keine Regelung gibt und wo die Selektivität im Wesentlichen den Fischern vorbehalten bleibt.
Änderungsantrag 28 ist unklar. Die Streichung von Ziffer 7 würde bedeuten, dass der Sardinen- und Sardellenfang völlig verboten wäre. Stattdessen will ihn die Kommission auch künftig in einem eindeutigen ordnungspolitischen Rahmen nationaler Managementpläne wissen. Die Kommission kann daher diesen Vorschlag nicht akzeptieren.
Die Kommission kann Änderungsantrag 29 nicht befürworten, denn eine um 30 % größere Höhe der Netze würde den Fischereiaufwand für kleine pelagische Arten entgegen dem wissenschaftlichen Rat, nach dem das Fischereiaufkommen bei dieser Ressource nicht gesteigert werden sollte, erhöhen. Da überdies Ringwaden für den Fang von bodennah lebenden Arten in Küstengewässern verwendet werden können, sollten wir es vermeiden, große Ringwaden zu erlauben, die in Küstengebieten, wo geschützte Habitate vorkommen, wie die Seegraswiesen, den Boden berühren.
Die Kommission ist jedoch offen gegenüber der Regulierung dieser Art von Fanggerät, indem zwischen Ringwadenfischerei für kleine pelagische Arten, demersale Arten und Thunfisch unterschieden wird. Für jede Kategorie sollte es unterschiedliche Vorschriften geben. Ich hoffe, im Rat wird man weiter ins Detail gehen können.
Die Kommission kann die Änderungsanträge 30 und 31 nicht akzeptieren. Es besteht weit gehende Einigkeit darin, dass das Management des Fischereiaufwands eines der wichtigsten Management-Tools im Mittelmeer sein sollte. Die Festlegung von maximalen Gesamtabmessungen für bestimmtes kleines Fanggerät ist eine Möglichkeit, dieses Problem anzugehen.
Die große Zahl von Fischern, die solches Fanggerät benutzen, macht es unumgänglich, Höchstabmessungen festzulegen, um eine weitere Zunahme der Größe zu verhindern, die zu unüberwindbaren Wällen von Netzen führen würde, die mehrere Arten an der freien Bewegung und Migration hindern.
Die Kommission kann die Änderungsanträge 32 und 34 aus verschiedenen Gründen nicht akzeptieren. Die in Änderungsantrag 32 geforderte Artenliste in Anhang VIII zur Verordnung des Rats 1039/98 enthält Arten, die entweder im Mittelmeer nicht vorkommen oder die in Küstengebieten mit Kiemennetzen und Treibnetzen gefangen werden. Es ist daher nicht wünschenswert, hier die gesamte Artenliste aufzunehmen. Der Sinn von Ziffer 7.2, wie in Änderungsantrag 10 erwähnt, besteht in der Auflistung einer Gruppe von Arten, die auf hoher See im Midwater oder nahe der Oberfläche sehr tiefer Gewässer gefangen werden und die, wenn sie im Fang von Kiemen- oder Verwickelnetzen vorkommen, eindeutige Signale dafür darstellen, dass es sich bei einem solchen Netz um ein Treibnetz und nicht um ein stationäres Kiemennetz handelt. Die Bestimmung ist die einzige Möglichkeit, das Verbot großer pelagischer Driftnetze durchzusetzen. Nichtsdestotrotz ist die Kommission offen für eine große Liste von Arten, sofern der Nachweis erbracht wird, dass bestimmte Arten nicht mit stationären Kiemennetzen, sondern nur mit Driftnetzen gefangen werden können.
Änderungsantrag 34, in dem eine Ausnahme für Schiffe unter 18 Metern vorgeschlagen wird, würde die Durchsetzung des Verbots großer pelagischer Driftnetze erheblich erschweren. Dieser Änderungsantrag geht von der Annahme aus, dass in Artikel 7.2 eine Art Oberflächen-Kiemennetz für den Thunfischfang gemeint ist. Diese Annahme ist nicht richtig, da solche Netze nicht als Treibnetze oder Kiemennetze, wie in Artikel 2.9 bzw. 12 definiert, klassifiziert werden können.
Abschließend möchte ich meine Zuversicht darüber zum Ausdruck bringen, dass wir dem Rat mit Unterstützung des Europäischen Parlaments einen verbesserten Kommissionsvorschlag vorlegen können, der eine Stellungnahme gegenüber dem Rat leichter macht. Alle Mittelmeerfischer und die von ihnen befischten marinen Ökosysteme verlangen dringend nach einem effektiven Fischereimanagement. Die Verabschiedung einer neuen, effizienteren und speziell auf die Mittelmeerfischerei zugeschnittenen Bestandserhaltungspolitik der Europäischen Union wird auch im multilateralen Rahmen der Allgemeinen Fischereikommission für das Mittelmeer ehrgeizigere Schritte befördern.
Wie Ihnen wohlbekannt ist, hat der Fischereiaufwand in vielen Gebieten zugenommen, und die Nutzungsstruktur ist noch immer nicht zufrieden stellend. Um der Mittelmeerfischerei den Weg zu einer nachhaltigen Nutzung des marinen Ökosystems im Mittelmeer zu ebnen, muss die Europäische Union, die größte Fischereimacht in der Region, ein gutes, glaubhaftes Beispiel setzen.
Es galt nicht als sicher, dass der tote Punkt in dieser Frage während der Amtszeit des vorangegangenen Europäischen Parlaments überwunden werden könnte. Die proaktive Haltung dieses Parlaments sowie das allgemeine Bewusstsein um den Zustand der Fischereiressourcen und der marinen Ökosysteme im Mittelmeer haben zur Erzielung eines gesunden Kompromisses beigetragen. Abgeordnete des Europäischen Parlaments haben ihre Fähigkeit bewiesen, das in dieser wichtigen Frage geäußerte Meinungsspektrum zur Kenntnis zu nehmen. Die Stellungnahme des Parlaments, die, so hoffe ich, heute verabschiedet wird, ist eine gute Grundlage für die vom Rat zu leistende Arbeit, und ich hoffe, dass die europäischen Institutionen im Interesse unserer Fischer und der Fischerei sowie der mediterranen Meeresumwelt in der Lage sein werden, binnen kurzer Frist die neue Verordnung herauszubringen.
Ein effizienterer gemeinschaftlicher Management-Rahmen ist erforderlich, um das volle Produktions- und Produktivitätspotenzial des Mittelmeers vor allem im Interesse der Fischer und auch anderer Unionsbürger, die ihren Nutzen vom Reichtum des Mittelmeers haben wollen, wieder herzustellen.
Abschließend möchte ich der Berichterstatterin sowie auch dem Vorsitzenden und den Mitgliedern des Fischereiausschusses noch einmal für ihre ausgezeichnete Mitarbeit in dieser Angelegenheit danken. Ihr proaktives Mitwirken hat für uns eine wesentliche Bereicherung dargestellt, was dazu beitragen wird, die Nachhaltigkeit der Fischerei im Mittelmeer zu gewährleisten.
Die Kommission ist über das enge Mitwirken der Berichterstatterin, Frau Fraga Estévez, und der Mitglieder des Fischereiausschusses an der Arbeit zu diesem wichtigen Vorschlag hocherfreut.
Ich freue mich, Ihnen mitteilen zu können, dass wir 22 der 34 vom Fischereiausschuss und weiteren Abgeordneten eingereichten Änderungsvorschläge akzeptieren können. Neun der 22 akzeptierten Änderungen, insbesondere die Änderungsanträge 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 und 26 waren Teil eines mit der Berichterstatterin abgestimmten und vom Fischereiausschuss gebilligten Kompromisspakets.
Der Kompromiss ist nicht in allen Einzelheiten perfekt. Nichtsdestoweniger wurde ein einigermaßen tragfähiger Ausgleich recht unterschiedlicher Auffassungen erreicht, ohne die Wirksamkeit des Vorschlags in Frage zu stellen.
Lassen Sie mich auf die anderen Änderungsanträge zu dem uns vorliegenden Bericht zu sprechen kommen. Die Kommission kann auch die Änderungen 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 und 24 akzeptieren, mit denen neue Aspekte eingebracht werden, die entweder unseren Vorschlag erhärten oder einen organischeren Zeitplan der Einleitung bestimmter Maßnahmen vorsehen. Nicht akzeptieren kann die Kommission jedoch die Änderungsanträge 1, 3, 4, 19 und 27 bis 34.
Vor allem das Konzept der Verantwortlichkeit von Staatsbürgern der Mitgliedstaaten ist bereits in der grundlegenden Verordnung über die gemeinschaftliche Fischereipolitik verankert und sollte hier beibehalten werden. Die Änderungsanträge 1, 3 und 4 können daher nicht akzeptiert werden.
Was die Änderungsanträge 19 und 33 angeht, in denen die Aufnahme von Bestimmungen über die finanzielle Unterstützung bei zeitweiligen Befischungsverboten und für Fischer, die vom Verbot bestimmten Fanggeräts betroffen sind, gefordert wird, ist die Kommission der Auffassung, dass diese Vorschläge fehl am Platze sind, entweder weil es in diesen Fragen bereits Vorschriften im Rahmen der Gemeinschaftsgesetzgebung gibt und/oder weil diese Fragen im Rahmen des Vorschlags über den europäischen Fischereifonds zu behandeln sind.
Die Kommission kann den Änderungsantrag 27 nicht akzeptieren, weil er die Bedeutung der Festlegung einer Mindestanlandungsgröße für Arten, die unter die vorgeschlagene Verordnung fallen, verwässern könnte. Da es keine Mindestgröße gibt, gäbe es für die Fischer keinerlei Anreiz, Gebiete, in denen sich Jungfische oder kleinere Organismen konzentrieren, zu meiden oder die Selektivität in Bezug auf Fanggeräte oder Fangpraktiken zu verbessern. Außerdem verlangt der Gemeinschaftsmarkt für Fischereiprodukte eine harmonisierte Mindestgröße."@de9
|
| lpv:translated text | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi d’exprimer la satisfaction de la Commission et ma satisfaction personnelle quant à la méthode de travail utilisée et à la qualité du travail effectué pour relever le défi de l’élaboration de mesures de gestion adéquate des ressources halieutiques en Méditerranée.
Il est rarement possible d’avoir une correspondance parfaite entre la taille minimale et la sélectivité de l’équipement imposé, en particulier dans la pêche multi-espèces multi-engins, comme c’est le cas en Méditerranée. En outre, certaines tailles minimales de débarquement sont déterminées en fonction des espèces capturées, le plus souvent avec des engins et des méthodes non couverts par cette proposition, la sélectivité étant essentiellement laissée à l’appréciation des pêcheurs eux-mêmes.
Pour ce qui est de l’amendement 28, ce n’est pas aussi clair. La suppression de l’article 3 signifierait que la pêche aux petits poissons blancs serait complètement interdite. L’objectif de la Commission est au contraire de maintenir cette pêche dans le cadre réglementaire clair de programmes de gestion nationaux. La Commission ne peut donc pas accepter cette proposition.
La Commission ne peut pas accepter l’amendement 29, car une augmentation de 30% de la hauteur des filets accroîtrait l’effort de pêche sur les petites espèces pélagiques, contre l’avis scientifique qui le déconseille. En outre, étant donné qu’il est possible d’utiliser des sennes coulissantes pour attraper des espèces de fond dans les zones côtières, nous devrions éviter d’autoriser l’utilisation de sennes coulissantes de grande taille susceptibles de toucher le fond des zones côtières qui abritent des habitats protégés tels que les prairies de posidonies.
La Commission est toutefois disposée à réglementer ce type d’engin de pêche en faisant la distinction entre la pêche d’espèces pélagiques, d’espèces de fond et de thons utilisant des sennes coulissantes, chacune des catégories devant suivre des règles différentes. J’espère qu’il sera possible d’affiner le concept au sein du Conseil.
La Commission ne peut accepter les amendements 30 et 31. Il est largement reconnu que la gestion de l’effort de pêche doit faire partie des principaux instruments de gestion de la Méditerranée. Une des réponses consiste à établir les dimensions générales maximales de certains petits engins de pêche artisanaux.
Le nombre impressionnant de pêcheurs utilisant ce type d’engin rend nécessaire de fixer des dimensions maximales pour éviter de nouvelles augmentations de taille qui auraient pour conséquence la formation de murs insurmontables de filets empêchant la libre circulation et la migration de plusieurs espèces. Les petits pêcheurs doivent également contribuer à la conservation.
La Commission ne peut pas accepter les amendements 32 et 34 pour différentes raisons. La liste d’espèces énumérées à l’annexe VIII du règlement du Conseil 1039/98 que réclame l’amendement 32 contient des espèces qui soit n’existent pas en Méditerranée soit peuvent être pêchées à l’aide de filets de fond ou de filets flottants ancrés dans les régions côtières. Il n’est donc pas souhaitable d’inclure toute la liste ici. En fait, la justification de l’article 7, paragraphe 2, fournie à l’amendement 10 consiste en l’établissement d’une liste d’espèces capturées en haute mer à mi-profondeur ou à la surface d’eaux très profondes et qui, lorsqu’elles se retrouvent dans des filets de fond ou des manets, indiquent clairement que les filets en question sont des filets dérivants et non des filets de fond. Cette disposition est le seul moyen d’appliquer l’interdiction de la pêche pélagique aux filets dérivants à grande échelle. Néanmoins, la Commission est ouverte à la compilation d’une grande liste d’espèces, s’il existe une preuve que certaines espèces ne peuvent pas être pêchées à l’aide de véritables filets de fond mais uniquement à l’aide de filets dérivants.
L’amendement 34 qui propose l’instauration d’une dérogation pour les bateaux de moins de 18 mètres affaiblirait gravement l’application de l’interdiction de la pêche pélagique aux filets dérivants à grande échelle. Cet amendement se base sur l’hypothèse que l’article 7, paragraphe 2, vise un type de filet maillant flottant utilisé pour le thon. Cette hypothèse n’est pas correcte, puisque ce type de filet n’entre pas dans la catégorie des filets maillants flottants ancrés ou des filets maillants de fond, telle que définie respectivement aux points 9 et 12 de l’article 2.
En conclusion, permettez-moi de vous exprimer ma confiance: avec l’aide du Parlement européen, nous pouvons présenter au Conseil une proposition améliorée, ce qui devrait faciliter la position de la Commission vis-à-vis du Conseil. Pour les pêcheurs travaillant en Méditerranée et les écosystèmes marins qu’ils exploitent, la mise en place d’une gestion efficace des ressources halieutiques est urgente. L’adoption d’une nouvelle politique de préservation des ressources méditerranéennes, plus efficace et aux dimensions de l’Union européenne favorisera aussi l’adoption de mesures plus ambitieuses au sein du cadre multilatéral de la Commission générale des pêches pour la Méditerranée.
Comme vous le savez certainement, l’effort de pêche s’est accru dans de nombreuses régions et le modèle d’exploitation n’est toujours pas satisfaisant. Afin d’orienter la pêche en Méditerranée vers une exploitation durable de l’écosystème marin méditerranéen, l’Union européenne, qui est la première puissance de pêche dans la région, doit montrer le bon exemple et être crédible.
Il n’était pas possible de considérer comme allant de soi que l’impasse dans laquelle s’était retrouvée la précédente législature sur cette question allait disparaître. L’attitude proactive de la présente Assemblée, ainsi qu’une prise de conscience générale de la situation des ressources halieutiques et des écosystèmes marins en Méditerranée, ont permis d’atteindre un compromis solide. Les députés européens ont montré qu’ils étaient capables d’écouter l’ensemble des points de vue qui ont été exprimés sur cette question importante. L’avis du Parlement, qui, je l’espère, sera adopté aujourd’hui, constitue un bon point de départ pour le travail à effectuer au Conseil et j’espère que les institutions européennes seront en mesure de fournir sous peu le nouveau règlement, dans l’intérêt des pêcheurs, des ressources halieutiques et de l’environnement marin méditerranéen.
Il est nécessaire d’établir un cadre de gestion communautaire plus efficace pour retrouver le plein potentiel de production et de productivité en Méditerranée, avant tout dans l’intérêt de tous nos pêcheurs, mais aussi dans celui des autres citoyens européens qui veulent tirer profit de la richesse de la Méditerranée.
Je conclurai mon intervention en remerciant à nouveau le rapporteur, ainsi que le président et les membres de la commission de la pêche, pour leur excellente coopération sur la question. Leur coopération proactive nous a en effet apporté beaucoup d’éléments constructifs qui nous permettront d’assurer la durabilité de la pêche en Méditerranée.
La Commission est vraiment ravie de l’étroite coopération qui s’est instaurée avec le rapporteur, Mme Fraga Estévez, et les membres de la commission de la pêche tout au long du travail réalisé sur cette importante proposition.
Je suis ravi d’être en mesure de vous informer que nous pouvons accepter 22 amendements sur les 34 déposés par la commission de la pêche et d’autres membres. Neuf amendements sur les 22 acceptés - il s’agit des amendements 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 et 26 -, faisaient partie d’un compromis global conclu avec le rapporteur et approuvé par la commission de la pêche.
Le compromis n’est pas parfait sur tous les points. Pourtant, un équilibre subtil entre des points de vue totalement différents a été atteint sans compromettre l’efficacité de la proposition.
Permettez-moi d’en venir aux autres amendements proposés au rapport qui nous est présenté. La Commission peut aussi accepter les amendements 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 et 24, qui introduisent de nouveaux éléments renforçant notre proposition ou étalant graduellement le calendrier d’introduction de certaines mesures. Toutefois, la Commission ne peut pas accepter les amendements 1, 3, 4, 19, et 27 à 34.
En particulier, la notion de responsabilité des ressortissants des États membres est déjà inscrite dans le règlement de base de la politique commune de la pêche et doit y rester. La Commission ne peut donc pas accepter les amendements 1, 3 et 4.
En ce qui concerne les amendements 19 et 33, qui demandent l’insertion de dispositions relatives à la mise en place d’une aide financière pendant les périodes de pause biologique et pour les pêcheurs concernés par les interdictions de certains engins de pêche, la Commission croit que ces propositions n’ont pas leur place ici, soit parce cette question est déjà régie dans le droit communautaire et/ou parce qu’elle doit être traitée dans le cadre de la proposition de Fonds européen pour la pêche.
La Commission ne peut pas accepter l’amendement 27, qui pourrait édulcorer l’importance que revêt l’établissement d’une taille minimale de débarquement pour les espèces couvertes par la proposition de règlement. En effet, rien d’autre n’inciterait les pêcheurs à éviter les zones de rassemblement de juvéniles ou d’organismes sous-dimensionnés ou à améliorer la sélectivité des engins et des méthodes de pêche. En outre, le marché commun des produits de la pêche réclame une taille minimale harmonisée."@fr8
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:translated text | |
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050609.5.4-010"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples