Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-148"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-15"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Euroopa angerja varude taastamine (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060515.17.1-148"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-15-Speech-1-149⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Joe Borg⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, først vil jeg gerne sige, at jeg er enig med ordføreren hr. Maat i, at vi kan og bør regulere, hvor det er nødvendigt. Jeg håber, at denne foranstaltning vil få de ønskede resultater, og at det ikke er for sent. Hr. Allister var inde på spørgsmålet om . Det er Kommissionens holdning, at bevaringsforanstaltningerne ikke er . Hvis et land eller en region forvalter ålebestanden eller andre indvandsfiskerier korrekt, vil der helt klart ikke være behov for nogen indgriben, og derfor vil selvreguleringen og egenkontrollen fortsætte. Men når situationen kræver indgriben med henblik på bevarelse af bestanden, vil Kommissionen have ret til at gribe ind på Fællesskabets vegne. Eksportforanstaltninger vil blive gennemført separat, men vi må først skabe orden i eget hus, for hvis vi i sidste ende kommer ud i internationale fora og fremlægger foranstaltninger, der vil hæmme eksporten, vil de øjeblikkelig blive angrebet, hvis ikke vi har indført foranstaltninger for at rette op på situationen hos os selv. Endelig vedrørende de punkter, som hr. Chmielewski tog op, har jeg noteret mig disse ting, og vi vil undersøge dem nærmere, navnlig i forbindelse med den mulige finansiering under Den Europæiske Fiskerifond. Hvis man kigger på tallene, er situationen nærmest katastrofal. Hr. Gklavakis nævnte, at ålebestandene ligger omkring 90-95 % under de historiske niveauer, hvilket bekræftes af videnskabelig forskning i bestandene af ål og navnlig af glasål. Jeg kan ikke være mere enig i, at dette er en anti-hierarkisk metode og ikke en hierarkisk metode, og det vil Kommissionen gerne have mere af. Derfor forsøger vi at inddrage sektoren mere og mere ved at oprette regionale rådgivningsråd og ved at lytte til Europa-Parlamentet, som altid er meget tæt på græsrødderne inden for denne sektor. Kommissionen havde valgt en åben metode og fremsatte et forslag i mangel på en mere hensigtsmæssig og specifik metode, for da vi talte med sektoren fandt vi ikke på daværende tidspunkt en mere hensigtsmæssig løsning end den 15 dages lukning i det oprindelige forslag. Som jeg sagde i mine indledende bemærkninger, er Kommissionen indstillet på at acceptere forslaget fra Parlamentet, eftersom det vil bidrage til at genoprette ålebestandene på en måde, der vil give resultater uden for store problemer for sektoren selv. Fru Fraga Estévez og fru Miguélez Ramos nævnte, at Kommissionens forslag blev afvist af sektoren. Det er korrekt, men forslaget tjente i det mindste det formål, at det satte gang i debatten for at forsøge at finde frem til den mest hensigtsmæssige løsning på hele spørgsmål om åleforvaltning. Med Parlamentets ændringsforslag, som Kommissionen har accepteret, kan vi nu tale om en foranstaltning, der kan bevæge sig i retning af at skabe resultater, og som har en rimelig udsigt til at få succes. Hr. Kristensen nævnte, at Kommissionen i sine forslag understreger behovet for forvaltningsplaner i medlemsstaterne på nationalt og regionalt plan, og med Parlamentets ændringsforslag kan vi bevæge os fremad med rimelig udsigt til succes på disse niveauer. Som jeg sagde før vedrørende bemærkningerne fra hr. Ortuondo Larrea og hr. Martinez, foreslog vi lukning i månedens første 15 dage i mangel af et bedre forslag. Det foreliggende ændringsforslag er blevet accepteret, og selv forlængelsen af gennemførelsesperioden er blevet accepteret af Kommissionen. Jeg er enig i bemærkningerne fra hr. Schlyter, fru de Brún og hr. Parish, og jeg har noteret mig de punkter, de tog op."@da² "Herr Präsident! Ich möchte eingangs feststellen, dass ich mit dem Berichterstatter, Herrn Maat, zustimme: wir können und müssen regulieren, wo es notwendig ist. Ich hoffe, dass diese Maßnahme die gewünschten Ergebnisse bringt und dass es noch nicht zu spät ist. Herr Allister warf die Frage auf, ob die EU ihre Befugnisse überschreite. Nach Meinung der Kommission ist dies bei Schutzmaßnahmen nicht der Fall. Wenn ein Land oder eine Region den Aalbestand oder andere Binnenfischbestände ordentlich bewirtschaftet, ist sicherlich keine Intervention angezeigt oder erforderlich, und demzufolge würden Selbstregulierung und -kontrolle fortgesetzt. Wo jedoch die Situation aus Gründen der Arterhaltung ein Handeln erforderlich macht, hätte die Kommission das Recht, im Namen der Gemeinschaft einzuschreiten. Maßnahmen in Bezug auf den Export werden noch in einem anderen Rahmen ergriffen werden, jedoch müssen wir zunächst unser eigenes Haus in Ordnung bringen. Wenn wir in internationalen Foren Maßnahmen vorlegen, die eine Beschränkung von Exporten zur Folge haben, würden diese sofort unter Beschuss geraten, wenn wir keine Schritte zur Verbesserung unserer eigenen Situation eingeleitet haben. Eine letzte Bemerkung zu der von Herrn Chmielewski angesprochenen Frage: Ich habe seine Ausführungen zur Kenntnis genommen, und wir werden uns darum kümmern, vor allem, was eine eventuelle Finanzierung aus dem Europäischen Fischereifonds anbelangt. Wenn man sich die Zahlen anschaut, ist die Lage nahezu katastrophal. Herr Gklavakis erwähnte, dass der Aalbestand rund 90 bis 95 % unter dem historischen Stand liegt, was wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zu den Aal- und insbesondere den Blankaalbeständen bestätigen. Ich bin ganz Ihrer Meinung, wir haben es hier mit einem partizipatorischen Konzept zu tun, von unten nach oben, und nicht umgekehrt, und die Kommission würde solche Ansätze gern öfter sehen. Deshalb versuchen wir, den Sektor immer stärker einzubeziehen, durch Schaffung regionaler Beiräte und indem wir auf die Meinung des Europäischen Parlaments hören, das mit der Basis dieses Sektors stets in sehr engem Kontakt steht. Die Kommission war offen in ihrem Herangehen und hat einen Vorschlag vorgelegt, da kein geeigneteres und konkreteres Konzept zur Verfügung stand, denn als wir mit dem Sektor sprachen, wurde keine bessere Lösung als das im ursprünglichen Vorschlag enthaltene 15-tägige Fangverbot gefunden. Wie ich in meinen einleitenden Bemerkungen sagte, ist die Kommission bereit, den vom Parlament vorgelegten Vorschlag zu akzeptieren, weil dies der Wiederauffüllung des Aalbestands in einer Art und Weise dient, die zu Ergebnissen führen würde, ohne dem Sektor selbst zu große Schwierigkeiten zu bereiten. Frau Fraga Estévez und Frau Miguélez Ramos sagten, der Vorschlag der Kommission sei vom Sektor abgelehnt worden. Das ist richtig, aber zumindest hat er eine Debatte in Gang gesetzt, um die beste Lösung für das gesamte Thema Aalbewirtschaftung zu finden. Mit den von der Kommission akzeptierten Änderungsanträgen des Parlaments können wir jetzt von einer Maßnahme sprechen, die Ergebnisse zeitigen kann und reelle Aussichten auf Erfolg hat. Herr Kristensen verwies darauf, dass der Vorschlag der Kommission die Notwendigkeit von Bewirtschaftungsplänen der Mitgliedstaaten auf nationaler oder regionaler Ebene unterstreicht, und mit dem vom Parlament vorgelegten Änderungsantrag können wir auf diesen Ebenen Schritte ergreifen, die reelle Chancen haben, erfolgreich zu sein. Was die Bemerkungen von Herrn Ortuondo Larrea und Herrn Martinez betrifft, habe ich bereits erwähnt, dass das Fangverbot für die ersten fünfzehn Tage des Monats in Ermangelung einer besseren Lösung vorgeschlagen wurde. Den uns vorliegenden Änderungsantrag und sogar die Verschiebung der Umsetzung hat die Kommission akzeptiert. Den Kommentaren von Herrn Schlyter, Frau de Brún und Herrn Parish pflichte ich bei, die angesprochenen Punkte habe ich zur Kenntnis genommen."@de⁹ ". Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να αρχίσω λέγοντας πως συμφωνώ με τον εισηγητή, τον κ. Maat, ότι μπορούμε και πρέπει να θεσπίζουμε ρυθμίσεις, όπου είναι απαραίτητο. Ευελπιστώ ότι αυτό το μέτρο θα επιφέρει τα επιθυμητά αποτελέσματα και ότι δεν είναι πολύ αργά. Ο κ. Allister έθεσε το ζήτημα της υπέρβασης εξουσίας Η άποψη της Επιτροπής είναι ότι τα μέτρα διατήρησης δεν συνιστούν υπέρβαση εξουσίας. Αν μια χώρα ή περιοχή διαχειρίζεται σωστά τα αποθέματα χελιών ή άλλα θέματα αλιείας εσωτερικών υδάτων, ασφαλώς δεν θα ζητηθεί ή απαιτηθεί καμία παρέμβαση και, ως εκ τούτου, θα εξακολουθεί να υπάρχει αυτορρύθμιση και αυτοέλεγχος. Ωστόσο, εάν η κατάσταση απαιτεί παρέμβαση για λόγους διατήρησης, η Επιτροπή θα έχει το δικαίωμα να παρέμβει εξ ονόματος της Κοινότητας. Θα ληφθούν εξαγωγικά μέτρα χωριστά, αλλά πρέπει πρώτα να ρυθμίσουμε τα του οίκου μας, επειδή αν λάβουμε μέρος σε διεθνή βήματα διαλόγου παρουσιάζοντας μέτρα που θα περιορίσουν τις εξαγωγές, θα επικριθούν αμέσως, αν δεν έχουμε λάβει μέτρα για τη διόρθωση της δικής μας κατάστασης. Τέλος, όσον αφορά το σημείο που έθιξε ο κ. Chmielewski, σημείωσα τα σημεία που έθιξε και θα τα εξετάσουμε, ιδίως σε σχέση με μια πιθανή χρηματοδότηση από το Ευρωπαϊκό Αλιευτικό Ταμείο. Αν εξετάσουμε τα αριθμητικά στοιχεία, η κατάσταση είναι σχεδόν καταστροφική. Ο κ. Γκλαβάκης ανέφερε ότι τα αποθέματα χελιών είναι περίπου 90 με 95% χαμηλότερα από τα ιστορικά επίπεδα, που έχει επιβεβαιώσει η επιστημονική έρευνα για το ύψος των αποθεμάτων χελιών και ιδιαίτερα των αργυρόχελων. Συμφωνώ απόλυτα ότι πρόκειται για μια προσέγγιση από τη βάση προς την κορυφή, και όχι για μια προσέγγιση από την κορυφή προς τη βάση, καθώς και ότι η Επιτροπή θα ήθελε να συμβαίνει αυτό περισσότερο. Για αυτό, προσπαθούμε να εμπλακεί ολοένα και περισσότερο ο τομέας, συστήνοντας περιφερειακά γνωμοδοτικά συμβούλια και ακούγοντας το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, το οποίο βρίσκεται πάντα πολύ κοντά στα χαμηλότερα επίπεδα του κλάδου. Η Επιτροπή ακολούθησε μια ανοικτή προσέγγιση και κατέληξε σε μια πρόταση, επιθυμώντας μια πιο κατάλληλη και συγκεκριμένη προσέγγιση επειδή, όταν συζητήσαμε με τον κλάδο, δεν καταφέραμε, εκείνην την περίοδο, να βρούμε μια πιο κατάλληλη λύση από την περίοδο απαγόρευσης 15 ημερών της αρχικής πρότασης. Όπως ανέφερα στις εισαγωγικές παρατηρήσεις μου, η Επιτροπή προτίθεται να δεχθεί την πρόταση που της υπέβαλε το Κοινοβούλιο, εφόσον αυτή συμβάλλει στην αναπλήρωση των αποθεμάτων χελιών, κατά τρόπο που θα επέφερε αποτελέσματα χωρίς ιδιαίτερη δυσκολία για τον ίδιο τον κλάδο. Η κ. Fraga Estévez και η κ. Miguélez Ramos ανέφεραν ότι η πρόταση της Επιτροπής απορρίφθηκε από τον κλάδο. Αυτό είναι αλήθεια, όμως η πρόταση χρησίμευσε τουλάχιστον στο να ξεκινήσει η συζήτηση για την εξεύρεση της πλέον κατάλληλης λύσης για το ζήτημα της διαχείρισης των χελιών συνολικά. Με τις τροπολογίες του Κοινοβουλίου, τις οποίες έχει δεχθεί η Επιτροπή, μπορούμε τώρα να μιλάμε για ένα μέτρο που μπορεί να επιφέρει αποτελέσματα και έχει εύλογες προοπτικές επιτυχίας. Ο κ. Kristensen ανέφερε ότι η πρόταση της Επιτροπής υπογραμμίζει την ανάγκη ύπαρξης προγραμμάτων διαχείρισης από τα κράτη μέλη, σε εθνικό ή περιφερειακό επίπεδο, και με την τροπολογία που πρότεινε το Κοινοβούλιο, μπορούμε να προχωρήσουμε με εύλογες προοπτικές επιτυχίας σε αυτά τα επίπεδα. Όπως προανέφερα, όσον αφορά τα σημεία που έθιξε ο κ. Ortuondo Larrea και ο κ. Martinez, η περίοδος απαγόρευσης των πρώτων 15 ημερών του μήνα προτάθηκε ελλείψει καλύτερης πρότασης. Η τροπολογία που έχουμε μπροστά μας έγινε δεκτή και η Επιτροπή δέχθηκε ακόμα και την παράταση της περιόδου εφαρμογής. Συμφωνώ με τα σχόλια του κ. Schlyter, της κ. de Brún και του κ. Parish και σημείωσα τα ζητήματα που έθιξαν."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, comenzaré diciendo que estoy de acuerdo con el ponente, el señor Maat, en que podemos y debemos regular en lo que sea necesario. Espero que esta medida dé los resultados deseados y que no sea demasiado tarde. El señor Allister ha sacado la cuestión del La Comisión cree que las medidas conservacionistas no son Si un país o una región gestionan las poblaciones de anguilas u otra pesca de interior de forma adecuada, es lógico que no se exija ninguna intervención y que continúen la autorregulación y el autocontrol. Pero cuando una situación requiera la intervención por motivos de conservación, la Comisión tendrá derecho a intervenir en nombre de la Comunidad. Las medidas relativas a la exportación se llevarán a cabo por separado, pero antes debemos poner nuestras cosas en orden, porque, a fin de cuentas, si acudimos a los foros internacionales proponiendo medidas restrictivas de las exportaciones, serán inmediatamente impugnadas si no hemos aplicado antes medidas para corregir nuestra propia situación. Por último, con respecto al tema aludido por el señor Chmielewski, he tomado nota de lo que ha dicho y lo estudiaremos, sobre todo en relación con la posible financiación con cargo al Fondo Europeo de Pesca. Si se observan las cifras, la situación es casi catastrófica. El señor Gklavakis ha dicho que las poblaciones de anguilas son un 90 o un 95 % inferiores a los niveles históricos, lo que han confirmado los estudios científicos sobre las anguilas y, en especial, sobre las anguilas plateadas. No puedo estar más de acuerdo en que se trata de un enfoque ascendente, no descendente, y en que la Comisión desearía que hubiera más casos como este. Por eso estamos tratando de implicar cada vez más al sector estableciendo consejos consultivos regionales y escuchando al Parlamento Europeo, siempre muy cercano a las bases de este sector. La Comisión se ha mostrado abierta y ha presentado esta propuesta a falta de otra más adecuada y específica, porque cuando conversamos con el sector no hallamos, en aquellas circunstancias, una solución mejor que la veda de quince días de la propuesta original. Como he dicho en mis observaciones iniciales, la Comisión está dispuesta a aceptar la propuesta planteada por el Parlamento, pues contribuiría a recuperar las poblaciones de anguilas de una manera efectiva y sin demasiados sacrificios para el propio sector. La señora Fraga Estévez y la señora Miguélez Ramos han apuntado que la propuesta de la Comisión ha sido rechazada por el sector. Es cierto, pero al menos ha servido para iniciar el debate en busca de la solución más adecuada para todo el problema de la gestión de las anguilas. Con las enmiendas del Parlamento, que la Comisión ha aceptado, ahora es posible hablar de una medida que puede avanzar y dar resultados y tiene razonables perspectivas de éxito. El señor Kristensen ha comentado que la propuesta de la Comisión hace hincapié en la necesidad de planes de gestión de los Estados miembros a escala nacional y regional, y con la enmienda propuesta por el Parlamento podemos seguir adelante con razonables perspectivas de éxito en esos ámbitos. Como he dicho antes, acerca de lo que han comentado el señor Ortuondo Larrea y el señor Martinez, la veda de los primeros quince días del mes se propuso a falta de una propuesta mejor. La enmienda que tenemos ante nosotros ha sido aceptada, y la Comisión ha aceptado incluso la ampliación del plazo de aplicación. Estoy de acuerdo con los comentarios del señor Schlyter, de la señora Brún y del señor Parish, y he tomado buena nota de ellos."@es²⁰ "Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, haluan aluksi todeta olevani samaa mieltä esittelijän, jäsen Maatin kanssa siitä, että voimme ja meidän pitää laatia lainsäädäntöä silloin kun se on tarpeen. Toivon, että tämä toimenpide tuottaa halutun tuloksen eikä tule liian myöhään. Jäsen Allister mainitsi valtuuksien ylittämisen. Komission näkemys on, että säilyttämistoimenpiteet kuuluvat sen toimivaltaan. Jos maa tai alue hallinnoi ankerias- tai muita sisävesikalakantoja asianmukaisesti, asiaan puuttumista ei ole syytä pyytää eikä se ole tarpeen, ja siksi itsesääntely ja omavalvonta voi jatkua. Kun tilanne kuitenkin vaatii toimenpiteitä kalakannan säilyttämiseksi, komissiolla on oikeus puuttua asiaan yhteisön puolesta. Vientiä koskeviin toimenpiteisiin ryhdytään erikseen, mutta ensin meidän on pantava omat asiamme järjestykseen, sillä onhan niin, että jos esitämme kansainvälisillä foorumeilla vientiä rajoittavia toimenpiteitä, ne torjutaan välittömästi, jollemme ensin ryhdy toimiin oman tilanteemme korjaamiseksi. Lopuksi toteaisin panneeni merkille jäsen Chmielewskin esille tuomat seikat. Tarkastelemme niitä erityisesti Euroopan kalatalousrahastosta mahdollisesti saatavan rahoituksen yhteydessä. Lukujen perusteella tilanne on lähes katastrofaalinen. Jäsen Gklavakis mainitsi, että ankeriaskannat ovat 90–95 prosenttia pienemmät kuin aiemmin vallinneet pitkän aikavälin tasot. Ankerias- ja erityisesti hopea-ankeriaskantojen kokoa koskevat tieteelliset tutkimukset ovat vahvistaneet tämän. Olen ehdottomasti samaa mieltä siitä, että lähestymistavan on suuntauduttava alhaalta ylöspäin, ei ylhäältä alaspäin, ja komissio haluaisi lisätä tätä. Siksi yritämme saada alaa mukaan yhä enemmän perustamalla alueellisia neuvoa-antavia toimikuntia ja kuuntelemalla Euroopan parlamenttia, joka on aina hyvin lähellä alan ruohonjuuritasoa. Komission suhtautumistapa oli avoin ja se esitti tämän ehdotuksen tarkoituksenmukaisemman ja tarkemman lähestymistavan puutteessa, sillä keskustellessamme alan edustajien kanssa emme tuolloin löytäneet sopivampaa ratkaisua kuin alkuperäiseen ehdotukseen sisältyvä 15 päivän rauhoitusaika. Kuten sanoin avauspuheenvuorossani, komissio on valmis hyväksymään parlamentin sille esittämän ehdotuksen, sillä sen avulla voidaan täydentää ankeriaskantoja tavalla, joka tuottaa tuloksia aiheuttamatta alalle itselleen liian suuria vaikeuksia. Jäsenet Fraga Estévez ja Miguélez Ramos totesivat alan torjuneen komission ehdotuksen. Tämä on totta, mutta ainakin ehdotus käynnisti keskustelun, jonka avulla voidaan löytää sopivin ratkaisu koko ankeriaanhoidon laajaan kysymykseen. Komission hyväksyttyä parlamentin tarkistukset olemme saaneet aikaan toimenpiteen, jonka avulla voimme saavuttaa tuloksia ja jolla on kohtuulliset onnistumisen mahdollisuudet. Jäsen Kristensen totesi komission ehdotuksessa korostettavan, että tarvitaan jäsenvaltioiden valtakunnallisia tai alueellisia hoitosuunnitelmia. Parlamentin ehdottamien tarkistusten jälkeen voimme edetä ja luottaa kohtuullisiin onnistumisen mahdollisuuksiin näillä tasoilla. Kuten sanoin aiemmin vastauksena jäsenten Ortuondo Larrea ja Martinez huomautuksiin, 15 päivän rauhoitusaikaa joka kuukauden alussa ehdotettiin paremman ehdotuksen puutteessa. Käsiteltävänä oleva tarkistus on hyväksytty, ja komissio on myös hyväksynyt täytäntöönpanoajan pidennyksen. Yhdyn jäsenten Schlyter, de Brún ja Parish huomautuksiin ja olen pannut merkille esille tuodut seikat."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, je tiens à commencer en disant que je suis d’accord avec le rapporteur, M. Maat, sur le fait que nous pouvons et que nous devons réglementer chaque fois que cela est nécessaire. J’espère que cette mesure produira les résultats souhaités et qu’il n’est pas trop tard. M. Allister a évoqué la question de l’abus de pouvoir. Le point de vue de la Commission est que les mesures de conservation ne constituent pas des abus de pouvoir. Si un pays ou une région gère correctement le stock d’anguilles, ou d’autres formes de pêche en eaux intérieures, il est certain qu’aucune intervention ne serait sollicitée ou exigée, et que donc, l’autorégulation et le contrôle se poursuivraient. Toutefois, lorsque la situation exige l’intervention à des fins de conservation, la Commission serait en droit d’intervenir au nom de la Communauté. Les mesures d’exportation seront prises séparément, mais nous devons d’abord faire le ménage chez nous, car, au bout du compte, si nous présentons, à l’occasion de forums internationaux, des mesures qui réduisent les exportations, celles-ci seraient immédiatement attaquées si nous n’avons pas également mis en place des mesures visant à rectifier notre propre situation. Enfin, en ce qui concerne le point évoqué par M. Chmielewski, j’ai pris bonne note des questions qu’il a soulevées, et nous allons les examiner, notamment en relation avec les éventuels financements au titre du Fonds européen pour la pêche. Si l’on regarde les chiffres, la situation est presque catastrophique. M. Gklavakis a signalé que le stock d’anguilles est inférieur de 90 à 95% aux niveaux historiques déjà atteints, ce qui a été confirmé par la recherche scientifique sur les niveaux des stocks d’anguilles, et d’anguilles argentées en particulier. Je suis tout à fait d’accord pour dire qu’il s’agit d’une approche ascendante, et non d’une approche descendante, et que la Commission souhaiterait que cela soit plus souvent le cas. C’est la raison pour laquelle nous tentons d’associer le secteur de manière accrue, en mettant en place des conseils consultatifs régionaux et en écoutant le Parlement européen, qui, dans ce secteur, est toujours très proche de la base. La Commission a adopté une approche ouverte et a avancé une proposition en vue d’une approche plus appropriée et plus spécifique, parce que, lorsque nous avons discuté avec le secteur, nous n’avons pas, à ce moment-là, trouvé de solution plus appropriée que la fermeture de 15 jours contenue dans la proposition initiale. Comme je l’ai dit dans mes remarques préliminaires, la Commission est disposée à accepter la proposition que le Parlement lui a soumise, étant donné que celle-ci aurait pour effet de reconstituer le stock de manière à produire des résultats sans causer trop de difficultés au secteur proprement dit. Mme Fraga Estévez et Mme Miguélez Ramos ont mentionné que la proposition de la Commission avait été rejetée par le secteur. C’est la vérité, mais cette proposition a au moins servi à lancer le débat visant à essayer de trouver la solution la plus appropriée quant à la question de la gestion dans sa globalité. Avec les amendements du Parlement, que la Commission a acceptés, nous pouvons maintenant parler d’une mesure qui peut aboutir à des résultats, et qui a des perspectives raisonnables de succès. M. Kristensen a mentionné que la proposition de la Commission soulignait la nécessité de plans de gestion de la part des États membres, au niveau national ou régional, et avec l’amendement proposé par le Parlement, nous pouvons aller de l’avant avec des chances raisonnables de succès à ces niveaux. Comme je l’ai déjà dit tout à l’heure, en ce qui concerne les questions soulevées par MM. Ortuondo Larrea et Martinez, la fermeture pendant les 15 premiers jours du mois a été proposée dans l’attente d’une meilleure proposition. L’amendement que nous avons devant nous a été accepté, et même l’extension de la période de mise en œuvre a été acceptée par la Commission. Je suis d’accord avec les commentaires de M. Schlyter, de Mme de Brún et de M. Parish, et j’ai pris bonne note des points évoqués."@fr⁸ "Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@hu¹¹ ". Signor Presidente, vorrei in primo luogo dichiararmi d’accordo con l’opinione del relatore, onorevole Maat: possiamo e dobbiamo introdurre una regolamentazione quando ciò è necessario. Mi auguro che questa misura produca i risultati sperati e che non giunga troppo in ritardo. L’onorevole Allister ha manifestato il dubbio di un’azione al di là delle nostre competenze; a parere della Commissione le misure di conservazione non si possono definire . Se un paese o una regione gestisce adeguatamente gli di anguille o altre attività di pesca interna, di certo non viene richiesto o sollecitato alcun intervento, e autoregolamentazione e controllo autonomo possono continuare. Tuttavia, ove la situazione esigesse un intervento a scopo conservativo, la Commissione avrebbe il diritto di intervenire a nome della Comunità. Le misure in materia di esportazione verranno adottate separatamente, ma in primo luogo dobbiamo mettere ordine in casa nostra; in ultima analisi, infatti, se presentassimo agli organismi internazionali misure di diminuzione delle esportazioni, queste sarebbero immediatamente attaccate se non avremo introdotto misure che ci consentano di rettificare la nostra situazione. Per quanto riguarda infine il problema sollevato dall’onorevole Chmielewski, ho preso nota delle sue osservazioni e le esaminerò, soprattutto in relazione alla possibilità di un finanziamento da parte del Fondo europeo per la pesca. Se si osservano le cifre, la situazione è praticamente disastrosa. L’onorevole Gklavakis ha ricordato che gli di anguille sono diminuiti del 90-95 per cento rispetto ai massimi storici, come del resto confermano le ricerche scientifiche concernenti i livelli degli di anguille e in particolare di anguille argentate. Concordo senza riserve sul fatto che si tratta di un approccio dal basso, non dall’alto; la Commissione anzi vorrebbe insistere in questo senso. Per tale motivo stiamo cercando di coinvolgere il settore in maniera sempre più estesa, istituendo consigli consultivi regionali e ascoltando il Parlamento europeo, sempre molto vicino alla base di questo settore. La Commissione ha adottato un approccio aperto e ha presentato una proposta, in mancanza di un approccio più adeguato e specifico; infatti, in occasione dei nostri colloqui con i rappresentanti del settore non abbiamo individuato una soluzione più adeguata del fermo di 15 giorni, contenuto nella proposta originaria. Come ho rilevato nel mio intervento introduttivo, la Commissione è disposta ad accettare la proposta che le ha presentato il Parlamento, poiché questa contribuirà a ricostituire gli di anguille secondo un criterio che produrrà risultati senza provocare troppe difficoltà al settore stesso. Le onorevoli Fraga Estévez e Miguélez Ramos hanno ricordato che la proposta della Commissione è stata respinta dai rappresentanti del settore; è vero, ma tale proposta è servita almeno ad avviare un dibattito teso a individuare la soluzione più opportuna per l’intera questione della gestione dell’anguilla. Grazie agli emendamenti del Parlamento, che la Commissione ha accettato, possiamo parlare ora di una misura che può tendere a produrre risultati e ha buone prospettive di successo. L’onorevole Kristensen ha ricordato che la proposta della Commissione sottolinea la necessità di piani di gestione elaborati dagli Stati membri a livello nazionale o regionale; con gli emendamenti proposti dal Parlamento possiamo proseguire con buone possibilità di successo a questi livelli. Come ho detto in precedenza, in merito alle osservazioni formulate dagli onorevoli Ortuondo Larrea e Martinez, il fermo per i primi quindici giorni del mese è stato proposto in mancanza di alternative più adeguate. Abbiamo accettato l’emendamento che è stato presentato, e la Commissione ha accettato anche l’estensione del periodo di applicazione. Concordo con le argomentazioni svolte dagli onorevoli Schlyter, de Brún e Parish; ho preso nota dei problemi che sono stati sollevati."@it¹² "Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@lv¹³ "Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@mt¹⁵ "ik wil om te beginnen graag zeggen dat ik het eens ben met de rapporteur, de heer Maat: we kunnen – en moeten – waar nodig regulerend optreden. Ik hoop dat deze maatregel het verlangde resultaat zal opleveren en dat het nog niet te laat is. De heer Allister heeft het gehad over bevoegdheden en de mogelijkheid dat deze maatregelen zouden zijn. De Commissie meent dat dit bij beheersmaatregelen nooit het geval kan zijn. Als een landen of regio’s hun aalbestanden en de visserij op hun binnenwateren goed beheren is er geen enkele reden om te interveniëren – de zelfregulatie en het eigen toezicht kunnen dan gewoon worden voortgezet. Als de toestand echter zodanig is dat interventie voor het behoud van de visstand geboden is, dan heeft de Commissie het recht om namens de Gemeenschap te interveniëren. Exportmaatregelen vormen een apart hoofdstuk. We zullen hoe dan ook eerst thuis orde op zaken moeten stellen. Als we bij internationale fora maatregelen presenteren die een belemmering op de invoer inhouden, zullen we – als we niets hebben ondernomen om de interne situatie bij te stellen – direct onder vuur komen te liggen. Tot slot, met betrekking tot het punt dat door de heer Chmielewski aan de orde is gebracht: ik heb notie genomen van zijn opmerkingen en ik zal ze nader bestuderen, vooral als het gaat om de mogelijkheden om fondsen uit het Europees Visserijfonds beschikbaar te stellen. Als je naar de statistieken kijkt, is de situatie bijkans rampzalig. De heer Gklavakis heeft ons verteld dat de populaties 90 tot 95 procent minder talrijk dan in een gedocumenteerd verleden, en dat is bevestigd door wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar alen en glasalen in het bijzonder. Dit is een aanpak die van onderen naar boven werkt, en niet andersom. Ik ben het daar helemaal mee eens – de Commissie zou dit vaker willen zien. Daarom proberen we de sector steeds meer bij het beleid te betrekken, door regionale adviesraden in te stellen en te luisteren naar wat het Parlement heeft te zeggen. Het Parlement onderhoudt immers het contact met de mensen die in deze sector actief zijn. De Commissie heeft een open benadering aangehouden en is vervolgens met een voorstel gekomen, dat misschien niet voldoende specifiek of het meest geschikte was. Ten tijde van de gesprekken met de sector hadden we echter geen betere oplossing dan die van sluiting van de visserijgebieden om de twee weken. Zoals ik bij mijn eerste interventie al heb aangegeven, is de Commissie bereid het door dit Parlement ingediende voorstel te aanvaarden, aangezien dat voorstel zal bijdragen tot het herstel van de aalbestanden, en wel op een zodanige wijze dat de sector van de maatregelen niet al teveel hinder ondervindt. Mevrouw Fraga Estévez en mevrouw Miguélez Ramos hebben erop gewezen dat het voorstel van de Commissie door de sector verworpen is. Dat is inderdaad waar, maar datzelfde voorstel heeft in ieder geval aangezet tot een discussie over de wijze waarop het beheer van de aalbestanden nu wél diende te geschieden. Het Parlement heeft een aantal amendementen voorgesteld en de Commissie heeft die aanvaard. Zo is er een maatregel geformuleerd die resultaten zou kunnen opleveren: er is een redelijke kans dat ze inderdaad doeltreffend zal blijken te zijn. De heer Kristensen heeft gezegd dat het voorstel van de Commissie aantoont dat er beheersplannen op nationaal en regionaal niveau moeten worden opgesteld. Het door dit Parlement voorgestelde amendement zal ons vermoedelijk in staat stellen op deze niveaus vorderingen te maken. Zoals ik eerder met betrekking tot de opmerkingen van de heer Ortuondo Larrea en de heer Martínez heb gezegd was het voorstel van om de visserijgronden elke maanden twee weken te sluiten eenvoudigweg het enige zinnige voorstel dat we konden bedenken. We hebben het door u ingediende amendement aanvaard en dat geldt ook voor het voorstel om de tenuitvoerlegging ervan uit te stellen. Ik ben het eens met hetgeen de heer Schlyter, mevrouw de Brún en de heer Parish hebben gezegd – ik heb hun opmerkingen ter harte genomen."@nl³ "Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, gostaria de começar por dizer que estou de acordo com o relator, o senhor deputado Maat, em que podemos e devemos regulamentar quando é necessário. Espero que esta medida produza os resultados desejados e que não venha tarde demais. O senhor deputado Allister colocou a questão do . A perspectiva da Comissão é que as medidas de conservação não são . Se um país ou região gere as unidades populacionais de enguias ou outras pescas interiores adequadamente, não será certamente solicitada qualquer intervenção e assim a auto-regulação e o controlo prosseguiriam. Porém, quando a situação requer intervenção por razões de conservação, a Comissão terá o direito de intervir em nome da Comunidade. As medidas relativas à exportação serão tomadas separadamente, mas temos primeiro de pôr a nossa casa em ordem, porque afinal de contas se vamos para os internacionais apresentar medidas para reduzir as exportações, elas serão imediatamente atacadas, se não tivermos já introduzido medidas para corrigir a nossa própria situação. Finalmente, no que se refere ao ponto levantado pelo senhor deputado Chmielewski, tomei nota dos pontos que referiu e irei analisá-los, especialmente em conjunto com o possível financiamento ao abrigo do Fundo Europeu das Pescas. Se olharmos para os números, a situação é quase catastrófica. O senhor deputado Gklavakis referiu que as unidades populacionais de enguias estão cerca de 90% a 95% abaixo dos níveis históricos, o que foi confirmado pela investigação científica feita aos níveis das unidades populacionais de enguias e de enguias-prateadas, em particular. Não posso estar mais de acordo em que esta é uma abordagem de baixo para cima, e não de cima para baixo, e que a Comissão gostaria de mais abordagens como esta. É por essa razão que estamos a tentar envolver o sector cada vez mais, criando conselhos consultivos regionais e ouvindo o Parlamento Europeu, que está sempre muito próximo das bases deste sector. A Comissão tem uma abordagem aberta e apresentou uma proposta, à falta de uma abordagem mais apropriada e mais específica, porque quando falámos com o sector não encontrámos, nessa conjuntura, uma solução mais apropriada do que o defeso de 15 dias da proposta original. Como eu disse nos meus comentários iniciais, a Comissão está disposta a aceitar a proposta que o Parlamento lhe apresentou, uma vez que isso contribuiria para reconstituir as unidades populacionais de enguia de uma forma que produziria resultados, sem causar demasiadas dificuldades ao sector. As senhoras deputadas Fraga Estévez e Miguélez Ramos mencionaram que a proposta da Comissão foi rejeitada pelo sector. Isso é verdade, mas a proposta serviu pelo menos para lançar o debate, para tentarmos encontrar a solução mais apropriada para toda esta questão da gestão da enguia. Com as alterações do Parlamento, que a Comissão aceitou, podemos agora falar de uma medida que pode avançar para produzir resultados e tem uma razoável expectativa de sucesso. O senhor deputado Kristensen mencionou que a proposta da Comissão salienta a necessidade de planos de gestão pelos Estados-Membros a nível nacional e regional e, com a alteração proposta pelo Parlamento, podemos avançar com razoáveis expectativas de sucesso a esses níveis. Como disse anteriormente, relativamente aos pontos mencionados pelos senhores deputados Ortuondo Larrea e Martinez, o defeso durante os primeiros 15 dias de cada mês foi proposto à falta de uma proposta melhor. A alteração que temos perante nós foi aceite e até mesmo o prolongamento do período de aplicação foi aceite pela Comissão. Concordo com os comentários do senhor deputado Schlyter, da senhora deputada de Brún e do senhor deputado Parish e tomei nota dos pontos que levantaram."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Maat, that we can and should regulate where it is necessary. I hope this measure will produce the desired results and that it is not too late. Mr Allister raised the question of . The Commission’s view is that conservation measures are not . If a country or region manages stock of eels or other inland fisheries properly, certainly no intervention would be solicited or required and therefore self-regulation and control would continue. However, where the situation requires intervention for conservation purposes, the Commission would have the right to intervene on behalf of the Community. Export measures will be undertaken separately, but we must first set our own house in order, because, at the end of the day, if we go to international fora presenting measures that would curtail exports, they would be immediately attacked if we have not introduced measures to rectify our own situation. Finally, with regard to the point raised by Mr Chmielewski, I have taken note of the points he raised and we will look into them, especially in conjunction with possible funding under the European Fisheries Fund. If one looks at the figures, the situation is almost catastrophic. Mr Gklavakis mentioned that stocks of eels are about 90 to 95% less than historic levels, which has been confirmed by the scientific research into levels of stocks of eels and silver eels in particular. I cannot agree more that it is a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, and that the Commission would like to have more of this. That is why we are trying to involve the sector more and more, by setting up regional advisory councils and by listening to the European Parliament, which is always very close to the grass roots of this sector. The Commission had an open approach and came up with a proposal, for want of a more appropriate and specific approach, because when we talked to the sector we did not, at that juncture, find a more appropriate solution than the 15-day closure in the original proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, the Commission is willing to accept the proposal Parliament presented to it, since that would work towards replenishing eel stocks in a way that would produce results without too much difficulty for the sector itself. Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned that the Commission proposal was rejected by the sector. That is true, but the proposal at least served to launch the debate in order to try to find the most appropriate solution for the whole question of eel management. With Parliament’s amendments, which the Commission has accepted, we can now speak of a measure that can move towards producing results and has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Kristensen mentioned that the Commission proposal underlines the need for management plans by Member States at national or regional level, and with the amendment proposed by Parliament we can move ahead with reasonable prospects of success at those levels. As I said before, on the points made by Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Martinez, closure for the first 15 days of the month was proposed for want of a better proposal. The amendment before us has been accepted and even the extension of the implementation period has been accepted by the Commission. I agree with the comments by Mr Schlyter, Mrs de Brún and Mr Parish and I have taken note of the points raised."@sl¹⁹ "Herr talman! Jag vill inleda med att säga att jag instämmer med föredraganden Albert Jan Maat i att vi kan och bör lagstifta där så är nödvändigt. Jag hoppas att denna åtgärd kommer att leda till önskat resultat och att det inte är för sent. James Hugh Allister tog upp frågan om Det är kommissionens uppfattning att skyddsåtgärder inte är Om ett land eller en region förvaltar ålbestånd eller annat inlandsfiske på ett riktigt sätt skulle man självfallet inte önska eller kräva något ingripande, och självreglering och kontroll skulle fortsätta. Där situationen kräver ingripande för skyddsändamål har emellertid kommissionen rätt att ingripa på gemenskapens vägnar. Exportåtgärder kommer att vidtas separat, men först måste vi få ordning på hemmaplan, för om vi i internationella forum presenterar åtgärder som skulle begränsa exporten skulle de omedelbart bli föremål för angrepp om vi inte har infört några åtgärder för att rätta till vår egen situation. Slutligen vill jag säga att jag har noterat de frågor som Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski tog upp, och vi kommer att se närmare på dem, särskilt i samband med eventuell finansiering inom ramen för Europeiska fiskerifonden. Om man tittar på siffrorna är situationen närmast katastrofal. Ioannis Gklavakis nämnde att ålbeståndet är 90–95 procent lägre än det har varit historiskt, något som bekräftats av vetenskaplig forskning om ålbestånden, i synnerhet blankål. Jag instämmer verkligen i att detta är ett nedifrån och upp-orienterat förhållningssätt, inte ett uppifrån och ned-orienterat förhållningssätt, och att kommissionen gärna skulle se mer av det. Det är anledningen till att vi försöker göra den berörda sektorn alltmer delaktig, genom att inrätta regionala rådgivande nämnder och genom att lyssna på Europaparlamentet, som alltid befinner sig mycket nära gräsrötterna i sektorn. Kommissionen närmade sig frågan på ett öppet sätt och kom med ett förslag, i brist på lämpligare och mer specifika strategier, därför att vi, när vi samtalade med sektorn, vid den tidpunkten inte hittade någon bättre lösning än fiskeförbudet på 15 dagar i det ursprungliga förslaget. Som jag sa i mitt inledningsanförande är kommissionen villig att godta det förslag som parlamentet har lagt fram eftersom det innebär att man arbetar för en påfyllning av ålbestånden på ett sätt som skulle ge resultat utan alltför stora svårigheter för sektorn. Carmen Fraga Estévez och Rosa Miguélez Ramos nämnde att kommissionsförslaget avvisades av sektorn. Det stämmer, men förslaget dög åtminstone till att få i gång debatten för att försöka hitta den lämpligaste lösningen för hela frågan om förvaltning av ålbeståndet. Med parlamentets ändringsförslag, som kommissionen har godtagit, kan vi nu tala om en åtgärd som kan leda till att vi kan nå resultat och som har rimliga utsikter att nå framgång. Henrik Darn Kristensen nämnde att man i kommissionens förslag understryker behovet av förvaltningsplaner i medlemsstaterna på nationell eller regional nivå, och med det ändringsförslag som parlamentet för fram kan vi gå vidare med rimliga utsikter att nå framgång på de nivåerna. Som jag sa förut i fråga om det som togs upp av Josu Ortuondo Larrea och Jean-Claude Martinez, lades förslaget om förbud de 15 första dagarna i månaden fram i brist på bättre. Det ändringsförslag som vi har framför oss har godtagits, och till och med utökningen av perioden för genomförande har godtagits av kommissionen. Jag instämmer i Carl Schlyters, Bairbre de Brúns och Neil Parishs kommentarer, och jag har noterat de saker som togs upp."@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} "fora"¹⁷ "stock"¹² "ultra vires"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,2,3,13,4,17,12} "ultra vires."^21,20