Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040210.8.2-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened very carefully to the arguments and problems outlined by the individual Members at this stage and would now like to comment on the amendments on that basis.
I can accept Amendments Nos 8, 11, 18, 24 and 26 in full.
First, I should say that I reject all the proposed amendments which aim to rename this entire project a ‘management plan’ rather than a recovery plan, because it is still a recovery plan. I think it would be wrong for us to gloss over the situation, although I gladly admit that the situation for Northern hake is less critical than for Northern cod.
On Amendment No 2: I must reject this amendment as this recital is already contained in the framework regulation on the common fisheries policy. It is not that I reject it on principle; it is quite simply redundant.
As regards Amendment No 5 and the consultations with the Regional Advisory Councils, or RACs, as they are also called, I am pleased to reassure you that as soon as they have been set up, we will naturally be consulting the RACs regularly on this issue. However, we do not need a recital for this purpose, as that is the whole point of the RACs – to be consulted on such matters.
I reject Amendment No 6 because the hake stock is below the precautionary level and is therefore not yet within safe biological limits. The purpose of Amendment No 7 is to show that we need criteria to determine when recovery has been achieved. It would be quite inappropriate to determine politically when recovery has been achieved. That is a scientific issue.
I reject Amendments Nos 12 and 27 because the additional control measures are absolutely essential. It is the fishermen themselves who frequently complain that control is uneven. We really do need these measures.
I can accept Amendment No 15 in part and I approve of amending the precautionary value for the biomass. I cannot, however, accept Amendment No 16. We should not be setting priorities for scientific evaluations here. It would be a little too simplistic to say that the practical observations made by fishermen should be given higher priority than systematic monitoring by scientific institutions. Of course the fishermen should contribute their data. Some of the uncertainties surrounding the scientific evaluations are due precisely to the fact that there is a lack of such data, as fishermen only tend to pass on data which they think will influence the evaluations in line with their own interests.
I can accept Amendments Nos 19 and 20 in part. The TACs are based on a fishing mortality rate of 0.25, and we incorporated this value into the proposal at the Council meeting in December. However, I cannot accept Amendment No 21. After the Council meeting in December, the proposal was amended so the Council has more scope when setting the TACs. The minimum level no longer needs to be reached within one year; instead, the TACs can be set so that this is achieved over a longer period. Consequently, I must reject Amendment No 25 as well, as the Council must have the opportunity to reduce the TACs in exceptional cases if this is necessary on biological grounds.
Unfortunately, I must also reject Amendments Nos 22 and 23, for logically, they would mean that the TACs could be amended by more than 15% year on year, and that is not acceptable. We must have the same degree of fluctuation in both directions; otherwise, the rules will be uneven."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples