Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-13-Speech-4-042"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-10-13"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Läänemere, Suur- ja Väike-Belti ning Sundi kalavarud⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051013.4.4-042"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-10-13-Speech-4-043⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Joe Borg⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@cs¹ "Fru formand, jeg vil indlede med at takke ordføreren, hr. Chmielewski, og Fiskerudvalget for betænkningen om Kommissionens forslag til tekniske foranstaltninger i Østersøen. Jeg er taknemmelig for, at udvalget og ordføreren har været så åbne, navnlig for de argumenter, som Kommissionen har fremkommet med, hvilket har givet sig udslag i en betænkning, som Kommissionen kan acceptere næsten i sin helhed. Dette er en meget teknisk sag, og som bekendt hidrører de tekniske bevarelsesforanstaltninger i Østersøen for øjeblikket i stor udstrækning fra fiskeribestemmelser vedtaget på internationalt plan i Den Internationale Østersø-fiskerikommission IBSFC. Fællesskabet har vedtaget nogle yderligere bestemmelser for dets egne farvande, som nu omfatter hele Østersøen bortset fra to små bidder russisk farvand. I fællesskabslovgivningen er foranstaltningerne fordelt på tre forskellige rådsforordninger: forordningen om tekniske foranstaltninger i Østersøen, forordningen om industrifiskeri efter sild i Østersøen - som begge er fra 1998 - og den årlige forordning om TAC'er og kvoter, som også indeholder en række tekniske bevarelsesforanstaltninger. Ud over denne retlige kompleksitet er de gældende bestemmelser i nogle tilfælde for komplicerede og i andre uklare og åbne for fortolkning. De er derfor vanskelige at gennemføre og kontrollere. Den 14. marts 2005 vedtog Kommissionen et forslag til en ny forordning om tekniske bevarelsesforanstaltninger i Østersøen. Forslaget blev udarbejdet efter omfattende høring af Østersøens interessenter og medlemsstaterne i 2004. Det samler alle de relevante bestemmelser i en enkelt retsakt, som vil forbedre den lovgivningsmæssige sammenhæng. Desuden er det formålet med forslaget at forenkle og strømline bestemmelserne mest muligt ved f.eks. at foreslå ensartede lukkede periode for visse arter i stedet for at have forskellige perioder i forskellige dele af Østersøen. Høringen i Fiskeriudvalget var karakteriseret af en ånd af godt samarbejde, som har ført til et stærkt resultat. Kommissionens forslag er meget teknisk med mange detaljer vedrørende konstruktion og brug af fiskeredskaber i Østersøen. Jeg er meget tilfreds med, at ordføreren og Fiskeriudvalget har været i stand til at behandle forslagets meget tekniske elementer og har stillet en række ændringsforslag, som vil forbedre forslaget. Ændringsforslag 5 og 6 er gode eksempler på dette. Der blev foreslået strenge regler for alle de net, som et trawl består af, for at garantere dets effektive selektivitet. Disse ændringsforslag giver mulighed for, at de strenge regler kun gælder for den bageste del af trawlet. Dermed er fiskeredskabets selektivitet ikke påvirket. Bestemmelserne er blevet forenklet og er lettere at forstå for fiskerne, og kontrollen på havet bliver lettere. Jeg kan støtte alle undtagen et af de 15 ændringsforslag, som er stillet i betænkningen. Det eneste ændringsforslag, som jeg ikke kan acceptere, er ændringsforslag 3. Hvis vi accepterer, at fiskeriinspektører kun kan tage prøver af en landing, hvis prøven er accepteret af fartøjets ejer, kan vi ødelægge inspektørens mulighed for at udføre den nødvendige kontrol. Desuden vil jeg minde om, at inspektørerne altid skal kunne bevise, at de prøver, de har taget, er repræsentative for landingen. Derfor kan jeg ikke støtte vedtagelsen af ændringsforslag 3. Jeg kan acceptere ændringsforslag 9 om indførelse af en vurdering af de indvirkninger, som drivgarn og andre indfiltringsredskaber har på bestandene af havpattedyr. Men lad mig gøre det helt klart, at jeg ikke er rede til at acceptere ændringen af udfasningen af drivgarn, som Rådet allerede vedtog i 2004 med Parlamentets støtte. Jeg vil slutte med endnu en gang at takke ordføreren og udvalget for deres fremragende arbejde."@da² ". Frau Präsidentin! Zuerst möchte ich dem Berichterstatter, Herrn Chmielewski und dem Fischereiausschuss für den Bericht zum Vorschlag der Kommission für technische Maßnahmen in der Ostsee danken. Ich möchte meine Dankbarkeit für die vom Ausschuss und vom Berichterstatter angenommene offene Haltung insbesondere gegenüber den Argumenten der Kommission zum Ausdruck bringen, denn diese hat zu einem Bericht geführte, dem die Kommission beinahe vollständig zustimmen kann. Hierbei handelt es sich um ein sehr technisches Dokument, und wie Sie wissen, stammen die derzeitigen technischen Bestandserhaltungsmaßnahmen in der Ostsee großteils von den auf internationaler Ebene in der Internationalen Ostseefischereikommission – IBSFC – angenommenen Fischereivorschriften. Die EU hat für ihre eigenen Gewässer einige zusätzliche Vorschriften angenommen, die sich jetzt auf die gesamte Ostsee, mit Ausnahme von zwei kleinen Teilen der russischen Gewässer, erstrecken. In den gemeinschaftlichen Rechtsvorschriften sind die Maßnahmen auf drei verschiedene Ratsverordnungen verteilt: die Verordnung über technische Maßnahmen in der Ostsee, die Verordnung über Industriefischerei auf Hering – beide aus dem Jahr 1998 – und die jährliche TAC- und Quotenverordnung, in der auch mehrere technische Maßnahmen für die Erhaltung enthalten sind. Außer dieser Komplexität der rechtlichen Gesichtspunkte sind die derzeitigen Vorschriften in einigen Fällen viel zu kompliziert und in anderen Fällen unklar und können verschieden interpretiert werden. Daher ist es schwierig, sie umzusetzen und zu kontrollieren. Am 14. März 2005 nahm die Kommission einen Vorschlag für eine neue Verordnung mit technischen Maßnahmen für die Erhaltung der Fischereiressourcen in der Ostsee an. Der Vorschlag wurde nach eingehender Konsultation mit den Akteuren im Ostseeraum und den Mitgliedstaaten während des Jahres 2004 erarbeitet. Darin werden alle einschlägigen Vorschriften zu einem einzigen Rechtsakt zusammengefasst, wodurch die rechtliche Kohärenz verbessert wird. Ferner sollen mit dem Vorschlag die Vorschriften so weit wie möglich vereinfacht und gestrafft werden, indem beispielsweise einheitliche Schonzeiten für bestimmte Arten vorgeschlagen werden, damit in den verschiedenen Teilen der Ostsee keine unterschiedlichen Zeiträume gelten. Die Konsultationen im Fischereiausschuss waren vom Geist der guten Zusammenarbeit geprägt, was zu einem überzeugenden Ergebnis führte. Der Vorschlag der Kommission ist sehr technisch und enthält viele Details, was die Konstruktion und die Verwendung von Fanggeräten in der Ostsee betrifft. Ich bin hocherfreut, dass es dem Berichterstatter und dem Fischereiausschuss gelungen ist, die sehr technischen Teile des Vorschlags anzusprechen und dass sie mehrere Änderungsanträge eingereicht haben, die den Vorschlag verbessern werden. Die Änderungsanträge 5 und 6 sind ein gutes Beispiel dafür. Für alle Netze, aus denen das Schleppnetz besteht, wurden strenge Vorschriften vorgeschlagen, um dessen wirkungsvolle Selektivität zu garantieren. Durch diese Änderungsanträge wird es ermöglicht, dass für den hinteren Teil des Schleppnetzes weniger strenge Vorschriften gelten. Daher wird die Selektivität der Fanggeräte nicht beeinträchtigt. Die Vorschriften wurden vereinfacht und sind für Fischer leichter verständlich, außerdem wird die Kontrolle auf See erleichtert. Ich kann - außer einen - alle im Bericht vorgeschlagenen 15 Änderungsanträge unterstützen. Der einzige Änderungsantrag, dem gegenüber ich Vorbehalte habe, ist Änderungsantrag 3. Wenn wir zustimmen, dass die Fischereiinspektoren nur dann Proben aus einer Anlandung nehmen dürfen, wenn auch der Reeder dieser Probe zustimmt, verhindern wir vielleicht, dass die Inspektoren die erforderlichen Kontrollen durchführen können. Darüber hinaus muss ich Sie daran erinnern, dass es immer Aufgabe der Inspektoren ist nachzuweisen, dass die genommenen Proben für die Anlandung repräsentativ sind. Daher kann ich Änderungsantrag 3 nicht unterstützen. Ich kann Änderungsantrag 9, eine Bewertung der Auswirkungen von Treibnetzen und anderen Verwickelnetzen auf die Meeressäugerpopulation einzuführen, akzeptieren. Jedoch möchte ich klarstellen, dass ich nicht bereit bin, der Änderung zum stufenweisen Verbot von Treibnetzen, wie sie bereits 2004 vom Rat mit der Unterstützung des Parlaments angenommen wurde, zuzustimmen. Abschließend möchte ich noch einmal dem Berichterstatter und dem Ausschuss für ihre hervorragende Arbeit danken."@de⁹ ". Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θέλω να ξεκινήσω ευχαριστώντας τον εισηγητή, τον κ. Chmielewski, και την Επιτροπή Αλιείας για την έκθεση σχετικά με την πρόταση της Επιτροπής για λήψη τεχνικών μέτρων στη Βαλτική Θάλασσα. Πρέπει να εκφράσω την ευγνωμοσύνη μου για την ανοιχτή προσέγγιση της επιτροπής και του εισηγητή, ιδιαίτερα όσον αφορά τα επιχειρήματα που προέβαλε η Επιτροπή, που είχαν ως αποτέλεσμα μια έκθεση την οποία η Επιτροπή μπορεί να δεχτεί σχεδόν στο σύνολό της. Πρόκειται για ένα πολύ τεχνικό θέμα και, όπως γνωρίζετε, τα τεχνικά μέτρα διατήρησης στη Βαλτική Θάλασσα προέρχονται σήμερα σε μεγάλο μέρος από αλιευτικούς κανόνες που εγκρίθηκαν σε διεθνές επίπεδο στη Διεθνή Επιτροπή Αλιείας στη Βαλτική Θάλασσα – IBSFC. Η Κοινότητα ενέκρινε ορισμένους πρόσθετους κανόνες για τα δικά της ύδατα, που τώρα καλύπτουν ολόκληρη τη Βαλτική Θάλασσα εκτός από δύο μικρά τμήματα ρωσικών υδάτων. Στη κοινοτική νομοθεσία τα μέτρα είναι διάσπαρτα σε τρεις διαφορετικούς κανονισμούς του Συμβουλίου: τον κανονισμό για τα τεχνικά μέτρα της Βαλτικής, τον κανονισμό για τη βιομηχανική αλιεία της ρέγγας –και οι δύο από το 1998– και τον κανονισμό για τα ετήσια TAC (σύνολα επιτρεπόμενων αλιευμάτων) και τις ποσοστώσεις, που περιλαμβάνει και ορισμένα τεχνικά μέτρα διατήρησης. Πέραν αυτής της νομικής πολυπλοκότητας, οι ισχύοντες κανόνες είναι, σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις, υπερβολικά περίπλοκοι και, σε άλλες, ασαφείς και εξακολουθούν να επιδέχονται ποικίλες ερμηνείες. Είναι, συνεπώς, δύσκολο να εφαρμοστούν και να ελεγχθούν. Στις 14 Μαρτίου 2005, η Επιτροπή ενέκρινε πρόταση νέου κανονισμού σχετικά με τεχνικά μέτρα διατήρησης για τη Βαλτική Θάλασσα. Η πρόταση συντάχθηκε κατόπιν εκτεταμένης διαβούλευσης με τα ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη της Βαλτικής και τα κράτη μέλη κατά τη διάρκεια του 2004. Συγκεντρώνει όλους τους σχετικούς κανόνες σε μια ενιαία νομοθετική πράξη, η οποία θα βελτιώσει τη νομική συνέπεια. Επιπλέον, η πρόταση επιδιώκει να απλοποιήσει και να εξορθολογικεύσει τους κανόνες όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο προτείνοντας, για παράδειγμα, ενιαίες απαγορευμένες περιόδους για ορισμένα είδη αντί να υπάρχουν διαφορετικές χρονικές περίοδοι στα διάφορα μέρη της Βαλτικής. Η διαβούλευση που πραγματοποιήθηκε εντός της Επιτροπής Αλιείας χαρακτηρίστηκε από πνεύμα καλής συνεργασίας, που οδήγησε σε ένα ισχυρό αποτέλεσμα. Η πρόταση της Επιτροπής είναι πολύ τεχνική με πολλές λεπτομέρειες που αφορούν την κατασκευή και τη χρήση αλιευτικού εξοπλισμού στη Βαλτική. Χαίρομαι πολύ που ο εισηγητής και η Επιτροπή Αλιείας μπόρεσαν να εγκύψουν στα πολύ τεχνικά σημεία της πρότασης και προωθούν ορισμένες τροπολογίες που θα βελτιώσουν την πρόταση. Οι τροπολογίες 5 και 6 αποτελούν ένα καλό παράδειγμα. Προτάθηκαν αυστηροί κανόνες για όλα τα δίχτυα που αποτελούν την τράτα, ώστε να διασφαλιστεί η αποδοτική της επιλεκτικότητα. Οι τροπολογίες αυτές επιτρέπουν τη μείωση της εφαρμογής των αυστηρών κανόνων στο πίσω μέρος της τράτας. Έτσι, δεν επηρεάζεται η επιλεκτικότητα του αλιευτικού εξοπλισμού. Οι κανόνες απλοποιήθηκαν και γίνονται ευκολότερα κατανοητοί από τους αλιείς, και διευκολύνεται ο έλεγχος στη θάλασσα. Από τις 15 τροπολογίες που προτείνονται στην έκθεση μπορώ να τις υποστηρίξω όλες εκτός από μία. Η μόνη τροπολογία για την οποία έχω επιφυλάξεις είναι η τροπολογία 3. Αν δεχτούμε ότι οι ελεγκτές αλιείας μπορούν να παίρνουν δείγματα μιας εκφόρτωσης μόνον αν ο πλοιοκτήτης έχει αποδεχτεί το δείγμα, μπορεί να υπονομεύσουμε την ικανότητα του ελεγκτή να διενεργεί τους απαραίτητους ελέγχους. Επιπλέον, πρέπει να σας υπενθυμίσω ότι εναπόκειται πάντοτε στους ελεγκτές να αποδείξουν ότι τα δείγματα που πήραν είναι αντιπροσωπευτικά της εκφόρτωσης. Επομένως, δεν είμαι σε θέση να υποστηρίξω την έγκριση της τροπολογίας 3. Μπορώ να αποδεχτώ την τροπολογία 9, σχετικά με τη θέσπιση αξιολόγησης των συνεπειών των παρασυρόμενων διχτυών και άλλων εργαλείων εμπλοκής στους πληθυσμούς θαλάσσιων θηλαστικών. Ωστόσο, επιτρέψτε μου να καταστήσω σαφές ότι δεν είμαι έτοιμος να δεχτώ την τροποποίηση του βαθμιαίου παροπλισμού των παρασυρόμενων διχτυών, όπως ήδη ενέκρινε το Συμβούλιο με την υποστήριξη του Κοινοβουλίου το 2004. Επιτρέψτε μου να ολοκληρώσω ευχαριστώντας ακόμη μία φορά τον εισηγητή και την επιτροπή για την εξαιρετική εργασία τους."@el¹⁰ ". Señora Presidenta, quiero comenzar dando las gracias al ponente, el señor Chmielewski, y a la Comisión de Pesca por el informe sobre la propuesta de la Comisión relativa a las medidas técnicas en el Mar Báltico. Debo expresar mi gratitud por la actitud abierta adoptada por la comisión y el ponente, en particular con respecto a los argumentos planteados por la Comisión, que han dado lugar a un informe que la Comisión puede aceptar prácticamente en su totalidad. Se trata de un expediente muy técnico y, como saben, las medidas técnicas de conservación en el Mar Báltico actualmente se derivan en gran parte de las normas pesqueras adoptadas a escala internacional en la Comisión Internacional de Pesca del Mar Báltico (IBSFC). La Comunidad ha adoptado algunas normas adicionales para sus propias aguas, que actualmente abarcan todo el Mar Báltico, salvo las dos pequeñas porciones de aguas rusas. En la legislación comunitaria, las medidas están dispersas en tres diferentes reglamentos del Consejo: el reglamento de medidas técnicas del Báltico, el reglamento sobre pesca industrial del arenque –ambos de 1998– y el reglamento sobre cuotas y TAC anuales, que también contempla una serie de medidas técnicas de conservación. Aparte de esta complejidad jurídica, las normas actuales son, en algunos casos, demasiado complicadas y, en otros, no son suficientemente claras y pueden interpretarse de distintas maneras. Por lo tanto, son difíciles de aplicar y controlar. El 14 de marzo de 2005, la Comisión adoptó una propuesta de nuevo reglamento relativo a las medidas técnicas de conservación para el Mar Báltico. La propuesta se elaboró tras una amplia consulta con las partes interesadas del Báltico y a los Estados miembros en el curso de 2004. Reúne todas las normas pertinentes en un solo acto legislativo, que mejorará la coherencia jurídica. Por otra parte, la propuesta pretende simplificar y racionalizar las normas al máximo posible, por ejemplo proponiendo temporadas cerradas uniformes para ciertas especies, en lugar de tener períodos de tiempo diferentes en las distintas partes del Báltico. La consulta celebrada dentro de la Comisión de Pesca se caracterizó por un espíritu de buena cooperación, lo que se ha traducido en un buen resultado. La propuesta de la Comisión es muy técnica y contiene muchos detalles relativos al diseño y al uso de los artes de pesca en el Báltico. Me satisface mucho que el ponente y la Comisión de Pesca hayan sido capaces de abordar los elementos altamente técnicos de la propuesta y que hayan formulado una serie de enmiendas que mejorarán la propuesta. Las enmiendas 5 y 6 son un buen ejemplo de esto. Se han propuesto normas estrictas para todas las redes de arrastre para garantizar su selectividad eficiente. Estas enmiendas permiten la reducción de la aplicación de las normas estrictas a la parte posterior de la red de arrastre. Así pues, la selectividad de los artes de pesca no se ve afectada. Las normas se han simplificado y se ha facilitado su comprensión para los pescadores. Asimismo, facilitan el control en el mar. Puedo apoyar todas menos una de las 15 enmiendas propuestas en el informe. La única enmienda con respecto a la que tengo mis reservas es la enmienda 3. Si aceptamos que los inspectores de pesca solo puedan tomar muestras de un desembarco cuando el propietario del barco dé su consentimiento, podemos socavar la capacidad de los inspectores para realizar los controles necesarios. Asimismo, debo recordarles que siempre corresponde a los inspectores demostrar que las muestras tomadas son representativas del desembarco. Por lo tanto, no puedo apoyar la aprobación de la enmienda 3. Puedo aceptar la enmienda 9, relativa a la introducción de una evaluación de los efectos de las redes de enmalle y otros artes de enredo, sobre las poblaciones de mamíferos marinos. No obstante, permítanme aclarar que no estoy dispuesto a aceptar la modificación de la supresión de las redes de enmalle, tal como ya fueron aprobadas por el Consejo, con el apoyo del Parlamento, en 2004. Quiero terminar dando las gracias, una vez más, al ponente y a la comisión por su excelente trabajo."@es²⁰ "Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, haluan aloittaa kiittämällä esittelijä Chmielewskia ja kalatalousvaliokuntaa mietinnöstä, joka koskee komission ehdotusta teknisistä toimenpiteistä Itämerellä. Olen kiitollinen valiokunnan ja esittelijän omaksumasta avoimesta asenteesta erityisesti komission ehdotuksia kohtaan, minkä ansiosta on saatu aikaan mietintö, jonka komissio voi hyväksyä lähes kokonaisuudessaan. Tämä on hyvin tekninen asiakirja, ja kuten tiedätte, Itämerellä käytössä olevat tekniset säilytystoimenpiteet perustuvat suurelta osin kalastusalueita koskeviin Itämeren kansainvälisen kalastuskomission IBSFC:n kansainvälisesti hyväksyttyihin sääntöihin. Euroopan yhteisö on hyväksynyt joitain lisäsääntöjä omista vesialueistaan, joihin nyt kuuluu koko Itämeri lukuun ottamatta kahta pientä Venäjälle kuuluvaa osaa. Yhteisön lainsäädännössä toimenpiteistä säädetään kolmessa neuvoston antamassa asetuksessa, jotka ovat asetus teknisistä toimenpiteistä Itämerellä, asetus sillin teollisesta kalastuksesta – molemmat vuodelta 1998 – sekä asetus vuosittain määriteltävästä pyydystettävien kalojen enimmäismäärästä ja kiintiöistä. Viimeisin asetus sisältää myös lukuisia teknisiä säilytystoimenpiteitä. Asetusten lukumäärän lisäksi nykyiset säännöt ovat joihinkin tapauksiin liian monimutkaisia, kun taas toisiin epäselviä ja tulkinnanvaraisia, mikä tekee niiden täytäntöönpanosta ja valvonnasta hankalaa. Komissio hyväksyi 14. maaliskuuta 2005 ehdotuksen uudeksi asetukseksi teknisistä säilytystoimenpiteistä Itämerellä. Ehdotus laadittiin vuonna 2004 toteutetun Itämeren alueen sidosryhmien ja jäsenvaltioiden laajan kuulemisen jälkeen. Ehdotuksessa yhdistetään kaikki olennaiset säännöt yhdeksi laiksi, mikä lisää oikeudellista johdonmukaisuutta. Lisäksi ehdotuksella pyritään tekemään säännöistä mahdollisimman yksinkertaisia ja tehokkaita, esimerkiksi ehdottamalla lajikohtaisten rauhoituskausien käyttöönottoa sen sijaan, että Itämeren eri alueet olisivat rauhoitettuja eri aikaan. Kalatalousvaliokunnan suorittama kuuleminen sujui hyvässä yhteistyöhengessä ja on johtanut hyviin tuloksiin. Komission ehdotus on hyvin tekninen ja sisältää paljon pyydysten valmistamiseen ja käyttöön liittyviä yksityiskohtia. Olen tyytyväinen, että esittelijä ja kalatalousvaliokunta ovat onnistuneet käsittelemään ehdotuksen hyvin teknisiäkin osia ja saaneet aikaan monia tarkistuksia, joilla ehdotusta parannetaan. Tarkistukset 5 ja 6 ovat hyviä esimerkkejä tästä. Troolin verkoille esitettiin tiukkoja sääntöjä niiden tehokkaan valikoivuuden takaamiseksi. Näillä tarkistuksilla sallitaan tiukkojen sääntöjen löyhempi soveltaminen troolin peräpäässä. Tällä tavoin pyydyksen valikoivuus ei kuitenkaan kärsi. Sääntöjä on yksinkertaistettu niin, että kalastajien on helpompi ymmärtää niitä, ja merivalvontaa on helpotettu. Tuen kaikkia paitsi yhtä 15:stä mietinnössä ehdotetusta tarkistuksesta. Ainoa tarkistus, johon suhtaudun varauksella, on tarkistus 3. Jos hyväksymme, että kalastusalueiden tarkastajat voivat poimia otoksia saaliista vain, jos kalastusaluksen omistaja on hyväksynyt otoksen, huononnamme tarkastajan mahdollisuuksia suorittaa tarvittavat tarkastukset. Minun on lisäksi muistutettava teitä siitä, että tarkastajan on aina todistettava, että heidän poimimansa otokset edustavat hyvin saalista. En siten pysty tukemaan tarkistuksen 3 hyväksymistä. Hyväksyn tarkistuksen 9, joka koskee ajoverkkojen ja muiden pussiverkkojen vaikutuksesta merinisäkäskantaan tehtävän arvioinnin käyttöönottoa. Haluan kuitenkin tehdä selväksi, etten ole valmis hyväksymään muutosta, joka koskee ajoverkkojen käytön vaiheittaista kieltoa, jonka neuvosto jo hyväksyi parlamentin tuella vuonna 2004. Lopuksi haluan kiittää vielä kerran esittelijää ja valiokuntaa erinomaisesta työstä."@fi⁷ "Madame la Présidente, je voudrais tout d’abord remercier le rapporteur, M. Chmielewski, et la commission de la pêche pour le rapport sur la proposition de la Commission concernant l’établissement de mesures techniques dans les eaux de la mer Baltique. Je tiens à témoigner ma reconnaissance pour l’attitude ouverte que la commission et le rapporteur ont adoptée, en particulier à l’égard des arguments présentés par la Commission, ce qui a conduit à un rapport que la Commission peut accepter pratiquement dans sa totalité. Il s’agit d’un dossier très technique et, comme vous le savez, les mesures techniques de conservation en mer Baltique proviennent actuellement, dans une large mesure, des règles relatives à la pêche adoptées à l’échelon international au sein de la Commission internationale des pêches de la mer Baltique (CIPMB). La Communauté a adopté des règles supplémentaires pour ses propres eaux, qui couvrent à présent toute la mer Baltique, à l’exception des deux petites zones appartenant à la Russie. Dans la législation communautaire, les mesures sont réparties dans trois règlements du Conseil: le règlement relatif aux mesures techniques en mer Baltique, le règlement concernant la pêche minotière au hareng - tous deux de 1998 - et le règlement annuel des TAC et quotas, qui contient également plusieurs mesures techniques de conservation. Mis à part cette complexité juridique, les règles actuelles sont, dans certains cas, extrêmement compliquées et, dans d’autres cas, elles manquent de clarté et sont sujettes à différentes interprétations. Par conséquent, il s’avère difficile de les appliquer et de les contrôler. Le 14 mars 2005, la Commission a adopté une proposition de nouveau règlement relatif à des mesures techniques de conservation pour la mer Baltique. L’élaboration de cette proposition fait suite à la consultation approfondie des parties intéressées de la mer Baltique et des États membres menée en 2004. La proposition réunit toutes les règles appropriées en un seul acte législatif, qui améliorera la cohérence juridique. En outre, la proposition vise à simplifier et à rationaliser autant que possible les règles, par exemple en proposant des périodes uniformes de protection des stocks pour certaines espèces au lieu de différentes périodes dans différentes zones de la mer Baltique. La consultation menée au sein de la commission de la pêche a été marquée par un esprit de bonne coopération, ce qui a donné lieu à un excellent résultat. La proposition de la Commission est très technique, puisqu’elle contient de nombreux détails concernant la construction et l’utilisation d’engins de pêche en mer Baltique. Je suis ravi que le rapporteur et la commission de la pêche aient pu aborder les éléments très techniques de la proposition et aient pu présenter plusieurs amendements qui amélioreront la proposition, à l’instar des amendements 5 et 6. Des règles strictes ont été proposées pour tous les filets constituant le chalut, afin de garantir une sélectivité efficace. Ces amendements permettent de limiter l’application des règles strictes à la partie arrière du chalut de telle sorte que la sélectivité de l’engin de pêche n’est pas compromise. Les règles ont été simplifiées et sont plus faciles à comprendre pour les pêcheurs et le contrôle en mer est facilité. Je peux soutenir les 15 amendements proposés dans le rapport, à l’exception de l’amendement 3, sur lequel j’émets des réserves. Si nous acceptons que les inspecteurs de pêche ne puissent prélever des échantillons de poissons débarqués que si l’échantillon a reçu l’approbation de l’armateur, nous pourrions ébranler la capacité des inspecteurs à effectuer les contrôles nécessaires. De surcroît, je dois vous rappeler qu’il appartient toujours aux inspecteurs de prouver que les échantillons qu’ils ont prélevés sont représentatifs des poissons débarqués. Je ne suis donc pas en mesure de soutenir l’adoption de l’amendement 3. Je peux accepter l’amendement 9, concernant l’instauration d’une évaluation des incidences des filets dérivants et d’autres filets emmêlants sur la population des mammifères marins. Cependant, je tiens à préciser que je ne suis pas disposé à accepter la modification de la suppression progressive des filets dérivants, que le Conseil a déjà approuvée en 2004 avec le soutien du Parlement. Permettez-moi, pour terminer, de remercier à nouveau le rapporteur et la commission pour leur excellent travail."@fr⁸ "Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@hu¹¹ ". Signora Presidente, innanzi tutto ringrazio il relatore, onorevole Chmielewski, e la commissione per la pesca per la relazione sulla proposta della Commissione relativa alle misure tecniche nel Mar Baltico. Devo esprimere la mia gratitudine per l’atteggiamento aperto adottato dalla commissione e dal relatore, in particolare sugli argomenti presentati dalla Commissione, che ha portato a una relazione che la Commissione può accogliere quasi integralmente. E’ un fascicolo molto tecnico e, come sapete, le misure tecniche di conservazione nel Mar Baltico al momento derivano in gran parte dalle norme in materia di pesca adottate a livello internazionale in sede di Commissione internazionale per la pesca nel Mar Baltico. La Comunità ha adottato alcune norme supplementari per le sue acque, che si applicano ora a tutto il Mar Baltico, eccetto per le due piccole fasce di acque russe. Nella legislazione comunitaria, le misure sono contenute in tre diversi regolamenti del Consiglio: il regolamento sulle misure tecniche per il Baltico, il regolamento sulla pesca industriale delle aringhe – entrambi del 1998 – e il regolamento sul totale ammissibile delle catture (TAC) e sulle quote annuali, che contiene anche alcune misure tecniche di conservazione. A parte la complessità giuridica, le norme attuali in alcuni casi sono eccessivamente complicate e in altri poco chiare e soggette a diverse interpretazioni. Sono quindi difficili da applicare e controllare. Il 14 marzo 2005 la Commissione ha adottato una proposta di nuovo regolamento sulle misure tecniche di conservazione per il Mar Baltico. La proposta è stata elaborata a seguito di un’ampia consultazione delle parti interessate e degli Stati membri della regione svolta nel 2004. La proposta riunisce tutte le norme pertinenti in un unico atto legislativo, che migliorerà la coerenza giuridica. Essa mira inoltre a semplificare e snellire il più possibile la normativa, per esempio proponendo stagioni di fermo uniformi per talune specie, anziché periodi diversi nelle varie zone del Baltico. La consultazione svolta in seno alla commissione per la pesca è stata caratterizzata da uno spirito di buona cooperazione, che ha dato un solido risultato. La proposta della Commissione è molto tecnica, con numerosi particolari che riguardano la costruzione e l’uso degli attrezzi da pesca nel Baltico. Sono lieto che il relatore e la commissione per la pesca siano riusciti ad affrontare gli elementi più tecnici della proposta e abbiano presentato alcuni emendamenti che ne migliorano il testo. Gli emendamenti nn. 5 e 6 sono un buon esempio. Sono state proposte norme severe per tutte le reti, tra cui quelle da traino, per garantire un’efficace selettività. Tali emendamenti permettono di limitare l’applicazione delle norme severe alla parte posteriore del traino. In tal modo, la selettività degli attrezzi da pesca non è compromessa. Le norme sono state semplificate, sono di più facile comprensione per i pescatori e agevolano i controlli in mare. Posso sostenere tutti i 15 emendamenti proposti nella relazione, tranne uno. L’unico emendamento sul quale nutro riserve è il n. 3. Se accettiamo che gli ispettori possano prelevare campioni di uno sbarco soltanto se tali campioni sono stati accettati dall’armatore, la capacità degli ispettori di svolgere i necessari controlli potrebbe risultarne compromessa. Inoltre, devo rammentarvi che spetta sempre agli ispettori dimostrare che i campioni prelevati sono rappresentativi dello sbarco. Non sono quindi in grado di sostenere l’adozione dell’emendamento n. 3. Posso accogliere l’emendamento n. 9, sull’introduzione di una valutazione degli effetti dell’uso di reti da posta derivanti e di altri attrezzi impiglianti sulla popolazione dei mammiferi marini. Tuttavia, voglio essere chiaro sul fatto che non sono disposto ad accettare la modifica del graduale ritiro delle reti da posta, già approvato dal Consiglio, con il sostegno del Parlamento, nel 2004. Permettetemi di concludere ringraziando ancora una volta il relatore e la commissione per la pesca per l’ottimo lavoro svolto."@it¹² "Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@lt¹⁴ "Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@lv¹³ "Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@mt¹⁵ "Mevrouw de Voorzitter, allereerst wil ik de rapporteur, de heer Chmielewski en de Commissie visserij bedanken voor het verslag over het voorstel van de Commissie voor technische maatregelen in de Oostzee. Ik ben blij met de open houding van de commissie en de rapporteur, vooral ten aanzien van de argumenten die de Europese Commissie heeft aangedragen. Deze houding heeft geresulteerd in een verslag dat de Commissie vrijwel in zijn geheel kan goedkeuren. We hebben hier te maken met een zeer technisch document en zoals u weet, vloeien de technische maatregelen voor de instandhouding van visbestanden tegenwoordig grotendeels voort uit de visserijvoorschriften die op internationaal niveau door de Internationale Visserijcommissie van de Oostzee (IBSFC) zijn vastgesteld. De Gemeenschap heeft enkele aanvullende regels voor haar eigen wateren goedgekeurd, die nu gelden voor de gehele Oostzee, met uitzondering van de twee kleine gedeelten die tot de Russische wateren behoren. Wat betreft de communautaire wetgeving zijn de maatregelen te vinden in drie verschillende verordeningen van de Raad: de verordening betreffende technische maatregelen in de Oostzee, de verordening betreffende de industriële visserij op haring – beide uit 1998 – en de jaarlijkse TAC- en quotaverordening, waarin enkele technische instandhoudingsmaatregelen worden vermeld. Het gaat hier om een ingewikkelde juridische constructie. Daarnaast zijn de huidige regels in bepaalde gevallen buitensporig complex en in andere gevallen onduidelijk en multi-interpretabel. Ze zijn daarom moeilijk uit te voeren en te controleren. Op 14 maart 2005 heeft de Commissie een voorstel aangenomen voor een nieuwe verordening betreffende technische maatregelen voor de instandhouding van visbestanden in de Oostzee. Het voorstel is in 2004 na uitvoerig overleg met de belanghebbenden in het Oostzeegebied en de lidstaten geformuleerd. In dat voorstel worden alle relevante voorschriften in één wetgevingsbesluit samengebracht, waardoor de consistentie op het juridische vlak zal verbeteren. Verder wordt ernaar gestreefd de regels zo veel mogelijk te vereenvoudigen en te stroomlijnen. Dit kan bijvoorbeeld gebeuren door uniforme beschermingsperioden voor bepaalde vissoorten voor te stellen, zodat er geen verschillende tijdsperioden gelden voor verschillende delen van de Oostzee. Het overleg binnen de Commissie visserij werd gekenmerkt door een goede samenwerking, met als gevolg een sterk resultaat. Het Commissievoorstel is zeer technisch van aard en bevat veel bijzonderheden over de vervaardiging en het gebruik van vistuig in de Oostzee. Ik ben erg blij dat de rapporteur en de Commissie visserij de zeer technische elementen van het voorstel hebben bestudeerd en ter verbetering enkele amendementen hebben ingediend. De amendementen 5 en 6 zijn hiervan een goed voorbeeld. Er zijn strenge regels voorgesteld voor alle netten inclusief trawlnetten. Hierdoor kan met de trawlnetten doeltreffend en selectief worden gevist. Deze amendementen maken het mogelijk dat de strenge regels alleen worden toegepast op het achterste deel van de trawlnetten. Op deze wijze komt de selectiviteit van het vistuig niet in het gedrang. De regels zijn vereenvoudigd en voor de vissers begrijpelijker geworden en het toezicht op zee is vergemakkelijkt. Op één na kan ik alle vijftien in het verslag voorgestelde amendementen aanvaarden. Alleen bij amendement 3 heb ik bedenkingen. Als wij het goedvinden dat visserij-inspecteurs uitsluitend monsters van aan land gebrachte vis mogen nemen wanneer het monster door de reder wordt geaccepteerd, bestaat de kans dat de inspecteurs niet langer de benodigde controles kunnen uitoefenen. Bovendien wijs ik u erop dat de inspecteurs altijd zelf moeten aantonen dat de door hen genomen monsters representatief zijn voor de aan land gebrachte vis. Daarom kan ik amendement 3 niet aanvaarden. Amendement 9 over de evaluatie van de gevolgen van drijfnetten of andere drijvende typen vistuig voor de zeezoogdierenpopulatie kan ik aanvaarden. Ik wil echter wel duidelijk stellen dat ik de wijziging in de geleidelijke afschaffing van drijfnetten, zoals reeds in 2004 door de Raad met steun van het Parlement is vastgesteld, niet zal goedkeuren. Tot slot wil ik de rapporteur en de commissie nogmaals bedanken voor hun uitstekende werk."@nl³ "Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@pl¹⁶ "Senhora Presidente, quero começar por agradecer ao relator, o senhor deputado Chmielewski, e à Comissão das Pescas pelo relatório sobre a proposta da Comissão relativamente à aplicação de medidas técnicas no mar Báltico. Gostaria de expressar os meus agradecimentos pela atitude de abertura adoptada pela comissão especializada e pelo relator, em particular em relação aos argumentos apresentados pela Comissão, tendo dado origem a um relatório que a Comissão pode aceitar quase na sua totalidade. Trata-se de um dossiê extremamente técnico e, como sabem, as medidas técnicas de conservação no mar Báltico, presentemente, são dimanadas em grande parte das normas de pesca adoptadas a nível internacional pela IBSFC, a Comissão Internacional das Pescarias do Mar Báltico. A Comunidade adoptou algumas normas adicionais para as suas próprias águas que agora incluem todo o mar Báltico, excepto duas pequenas partes que são águas russas. Em termos de legislação comunitária, as medidas estendem-se por três diferentes regulamentos do Conselho: o regulamento sobre as medidas técnicas no Báltico, o regulamento sobre a pesca industrial do arenque – ambos de 1998 – e o actual regulamento sobre os TAC e as quotas, onde também estão contidas algumas medidas técnicas de conservação. Além desta complexidade jurídica, as actuais normas são, nalguns casos, excessivamente complicadas e, noutros, pouco claras e abertas à interpretação. São, portanto, difíceis de implementar e de controlar. Em 14 de Março de 2005, a Comissão adoptou uma proposta referente a um novo regulamento sobre medidas técnicas de conservação para o mar Báltico. A proposta foi elaborada após ampla consulta com os parceiros do Báltico e com os Estados-Membros durante o ano de 2004. Nela são agrupadas, num único acto legislativo, todas as normas aplicáveis que irão melhorar a coerência jurídica. A proposta pretende ainda simplificar e tornar tão eficientes quanto possível as normas, por exemplo propondo a normalização das datas das épocas de defeso para certas espécies em vez de ter épocas diferenciadas em diferentes partes do Báltico. A consulta mantida no seio da Comissão das Pescas caracterizou-se por um espírito de boa cooperação, tendo dado origem a um forte resultado. A proposta da Comissão é bastante técnica, com muitos pormenores relacionados com a construção e a utilização das artes de pesca no Báltico. Fico muito satisfeito por o relator e a Comissão das Pescas terem conseguido abordar os elementos extremamente técnicos da proposta, tendo apresentado uma série de alterações que irão beneficiar a proposta. As alterações 5 e 6 constituem bons exemplos deste facto. Foram propostas normas rigorosas para todas as redes que incluem arrasto de modo a garantir a sua eficaz selectividade. As alterações permitem a redução da aplicação das normas rigorosas à parte posterior da rede de arrasto, não afectando, deste modo, a selectividade das artes de pesca. As normas foram simplificadas e são de mais fácil entendimento para os pescadores, sendo facilitado o controlo no mar. Posso aceitar todas as 15 alterações propostas no relatório, à excepção de uma. A única alteração em que tenho reservas é alteração 3. Se aceitarmos que os inspectores apenas podem retirar amostras de um desembarque, desde que essa amostra tenha sido aceite pelo armador, poderemos estar a comprometer a capacidade do inspector para efectuar os necessários controlos. Tenho igualmente de recordar aos senhores deputados que são sempre os inspectores a ter de provar que as amostras recolhidas são representativas do desembarque. Nesta perspectiva, não estou em posição de apoiar a adopção da alteração 3. Posso aceitar a alteração 9 sobre a introdução de uma avaliação dos efeitos da utilização de redes de deriva e outras artes de enredar na população marinha de mamíferos. Permitam-me, contudo, deixar claro que não estou preparado para aceitar a modificação da retirada gradual das redes de deriva, tal como já foi adoptado pelo Conselho com o apoio do Parlamento, em 2004. Permitam-me finalizar, agradecendo mais uma vez ao relator e à comissão especializada pelo excelente trabalho produzido."@pt¹⁷ "Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@sk¹⁸ "Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and the Committee on Fisheries for the report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures in the Baltic Sea. I must express my gratitude for the open attitude taken by the committee and the rapporteur, in particular to the arguments put forward by the Commission, resulting in a report which the Commission can accept almost in its entirety. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Baltic Sea presently originate in large part from fisheries rules adopted at international level in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee – IBSFC. The Community has adopted some additional rules for its own waters, which now cover all of the Baltic Sea except for the two small portions of Russian waters. In Community legislation, the measures are spread out in three different Council regulations: the Baltic technical measures regulation, the regulation on industrial fishing for herring – both from 1998 – and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are, in some cases, over-complicated and, in others, unclear and remain open to interpretation. They are therefore difficult to implement and to control. On 14 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures for the Baltic Sea. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation with the Baltic stakeholders and the Member States during 2004. It groups together all the relevant rules into a single legislative act, which will improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify and to streamline the rules as far as possible by, for example, proposing uniform closed seasons for certain species instead of having differing time periods in different parts of the Baltic. The consultation held within the Committee on Fisheries was characterised by a spirit of good cooperation, which has led to a strong result. The Commission’s proposal is very technical with many details relating to the construction and use of fishing gear in the Baltic. I am very pleased that the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries have been able to address the very technical elements of the proposal and have come forward with a number of amendments which will improve the proposal. Amendments 5 and 6 are a good example of this. Strict rules were proposed for all the nets comprising the trawl to guarantee its efficient selectivity. These amendments allow the reduction of the application of the strict rules to the rear part of the trawl. Thus, the selectivity of the fishing gear is not affected. The rules have been simplified and are easier to understand for the fishermen, and control at sea is facilitated. I can support all but one of the 15 amendments proposed in the report. The only amendment on which I have reservations is Amendment 3. If we accept that fisheries inspectors can only take samples of a landing if the sample has been accepted by the ship owner, we may undermine the inspectors’ ability to carry out the necessary controls. Furthermore, I must remind you that it is always up to the inspectors to prove that the samples they have taken are representative of the landing. Therefore, I am not in a position to support the adoption of Amendment 3. I can accept Amendment 9, on the introduction of an assessment of the effects of driftnets and other entangling gears on the sea mammal populations. However, let me make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the modification of the phasing-out of driftnets, as already adopted by the Council with Parliament’s support, in 2004. Let me finish by once again thanking the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work."@sl¹⁹ ". Fru talman! Jag vill inleda med att tacka föredraganden, Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, och fiskeriutskottet för betänkandet om kommissionens förslag till tekniska åtgärder i Östersjön. Jag måste uttrycka min tacksamhet för utskottets och föredragandens öppna inställning, särskilt i fråga om argumenten som kommissionen har lagt fram och som resulterat i ett betänkande som kommissionen nästan kan godkänna helt och hållet. Det här är ett mycket tekniskt dokument, och som ni väl vet utgår i nuläget de tekniska åtgärderna för bevarande av Östersjön från fiskebestämmelser som antagits på internationell nivå i Internationella fiskerikommissionen för Östersjön (IBSFC). Gemenskapen har antagit några tilläggsbestämmelser för sina egna vattenområden, som nu täcker hela Östersjöområdet förutom de två små andelarna ryskt vatten. I gemenskapslagstiftningen är åtgärderna fördelade på tre olika rådsförordningar: förordningen om tekniska åtgärder i Östersjön, förordningen om industriellt sillfiske – båda från 1998 – och den årliga TAC (tillåtna totalfångsten) och kvotförordningen, som också innehåller flera tekniska åtgärder för bevarande. Bortsett från denna rättsliga komplexitet är de nuvarande bestämmelserna ibland överkomplicerade och, i andra fall, otydliga och lämnar utrymme för olika tolkningar. De är därför svåra att tillämpa och kontrollera. Kommissionen antog den 14 mars 2005 ett förslag till en ny förordning om tekniska åtgärder för bevarande av Östersjöområdet. Förslaget utarbetades efter omfattande samråd med Östersjöområdets aktörer och medlemsstater under 2004. Det innebär att alla relevanta bestämmelser samlas i en enda rättsakt, vilket kommer att skapa större rättslig enhetlighet. Därutöver syftar förslaget till att förenkla och effektivisera bestämmelserna så långt det går, genom att till exempel föreslå enhetliga stängda säsonger för vissa arter i stället för olika tidsperioder i olika delar av Östersjön. Det samråd som hölls inom fiskeriutskottet utmärktes av god samarbetsanda och har lett till ett starkt resultat. Kommissionens förslag är mycket tekniskt med flera detaljer som relaterar till tillverkning och bruk av fiskeutrustning i Östersjön. Jag är mycket nöjd med att föredraganden och fiskeriutskottet har kunnat hantera förslagets mycket tekniska delar, och vi har lagt fram ett antal ändringsförslag som kommer att förbättra förslaget. Ändringsförslagen 5 och 6 är bra exempel på detta. Det har föreslagits stränga bestämmelser för alla nät som innefattar trålar för att säkerställa effektiv selektivitet. Dessa ändringsförslag tillåter en inskränkt tillämpning av de stränga bestämmelserna om trålens bakre del. Följaktligen påverkas inte fiskeutrustningens selektivitet. Bestämmelserna har förenklats och är mer lättförståeliga för yrkesfiskarna, och kontroll på havet förenklas. Jag kan stödja alla förutom ett av de 15 ändringsförslag som lagts fram i betänkandet. Det enda ändringsförslag jag motsätter mig är ändringsförslag 3. Om vi godkänner att fiskeriinspektörer endast kan ta stickprover vid landning om provet har godkänts av redaren undergräver vi inspektörens förmåga att utföra de nödvändiga kontrollerna. Dessutom måste jag påminna er om att det alltid är upp till inspektörerna att bevisa att stickproverna de har tagit är representativa för landningen. Jag är därför inte i stånd att stödja antagandet av ändringsförslag 3. Jag kan godta ändringsförslag 9 om att införa bedömning av drivgarns och annan snärjande utrustnings inverkan på vattenlevande däggdjur. Låt mig emellertid klargöra att jag inte är beredd att godkänna modifieringen av den gradvisa avvecklingen av drivgarn, som rådet antog med parlamentets hjälp 2004. Låt mig avsluta genom att ännu en gång tacka föredraganden och utskottet för deras utmärkta arbete."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Joe Borg,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "Member of the Commission"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4}