Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-13-Speech-4-113"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-06-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020613.4.4-113"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-06-13-Speech-4-1142
lpv:speaker	lp:Daniel Varela Suanzes-carpegna2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Amendment No 1 having been rejected by the plenary (the Varela Amendment, adopted in the Committee on Fisheries), Article 1 of the Commission’s proposal is fully retained, which includes hake and also a precautionary biomass target of 165 000 tonnes. Taking into account that this target was questioned by the most recent scientific recommendations, reducing it to 145 000 tonnes, and that the Commission itself said in meetings of the Northern hake workshop that a target of 120 000 tonnes could be acceptable, we cannot vote in favour of a Proposal that includes hake and that sets the target at 165 000 tonnes. There is also a contradiction in the Stihler report, as in her explanatory statement the rapporteur herself recognises this quantity of 165 000 tonnes as being “too high" (Biomass Targets) and in her conclusions she says that "a relaxation in the targets for hake […] should be allowed". The plenary has also adopted amendments that improve the Commission’s proposal, which we have supported, so neither can we reject those improvements which, although they are inadequate, do, however, prevent us from voting against the report, which is why we have abstained in the final vote on it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph