Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-09-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050609.5.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, let me express the Commission's any my personal satisfaction with the method and the quality of the work done to tackle the challenge of developing adequate management measures for our Mediterranean fisheries.
A strict correspondence between minimum size and selectivity of prescribed equipment is rarely possible, particularly in multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, as is the case in the Mediterranean. Moreover, some minimum landing sizes are set for species caught, mainly with fishing gear and practices that are not regulated in this proposal and where selectivity is essentially left to the fishermen themselves.
As far as Amendment 28 is concerned, the same is not clear. The deletion of paragraph 3 would mean that whitebait fisheries would be completely forbidden. The Commission's aim is instead to keep them within a clear regulatory framework of national management plans. The Commission cannot therefore accept this proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 29, because a 30% increase in the height of the nets would increase fishing effort for small pelagic species, against scientific advice that calls for no increase in the fishing effort targeting this resource. Moreover, since purse seines may be used to catch demersal species in coastal areas, we should avoid authorising large purse seines that could touch the bottom in coastal areas where protected habitats, such as Posidonia beds, occur.
The Commission is however open to regulating this type of fishing gear by differentiating between purse seine fisheries for small pelagic species, demersal species and tuna. Each category should follow different rules. I hope that further refinement will be possible within the Council.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 30 and 31. It is widely recognised that management of fishing effort should be one of the main management tools in the Mediterranean. Establishing the maximum overall dimensions for certain small-scale fishing gear is a way to address this.
The huge number of fishermen using this gear makes it indispensable to set maximum dimensions to avoid further increases in size which would result in insuperable walls of nets that impede free movement and migration for several species. Small-scale fishermen should also contribute to conservation.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 32 and 34 for different reasons. The list of species in Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1039/98 requested by Amendment 32 contains species which are either not present in the Mediterranean or which can be caught by bottom-set nets and anchored floating nets in coastal areas. It is therefore undesirable to include the full list of species here. In fact the rationale of Article 7(2) as mentioned in Amendment 10 is to list a group of species which are caught offshore in midwater, or close to the surface of very deep waters and which, when they occur in the catch of a bottom-set gillnet or entangling net, are clear signals that such a net is a drift net rather than a bottom-set net. This provision is the only way to enforce the large pelagic drift net ban. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to a large list of species if there is evidence that certain species cannot be caught by real bottom-set nets but only by drift nets.
Amendment 34 suggesting a derogation for vessels smaller than 18 metres would gravely weaken the enforcement of the large pelagic drift nets ban. This amendment is based on the assumption that Article 7(2) addresses a type of surface gillnet targeting tuna. This assumption is not correct, since such nets cannot be classified as an anchored floating net or bottom-set net as defined in Article 2(9) and (12) respectively.
In conclusion, may I express the confidence that, with the help of the European Parliament, we can put before the Council an improved Commission proposal, which should facilitate its position vis-à-vis the Council. All Mediterranean fishermen and the marine ecosystems that they exploit need urgent and effective fisheries management. The adoption of a new, more effective and specially tailored European Union conservation policy for Mediterranean fisheries will also foster more ambitious steps within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
As you are well aware, fishing effort has been increasing in many areas and the exploitation pattern is still not satisfactory. In order to guide Mediterranean fisheries towards sustainable exploitation of the Mediterranean marine ecosystem, the European Union, which is the biggest fishing power in the region, needs to set a good and credible example.
It could not be taken for granted that the deadlock on this matter during the term of the previous European Parliament could be overcome. The proactive attitude of this Parliament, along with a general awareness of the state of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems in the Mediterranean, has contributed to the achievement of a sound compromise. Members of the European Parliament have shown their ability to listen to the spectrum of views that have been voiced on this important question. Parliament's opinion, which I hope will be adopted today, is a good starting point for the work to be carried out in the Council and I hope that the European institutions will be able to deliver the new regulation shortly, in the interests of our fishermen and of fisheries and the marine environment of the Mediterranean.
A more effective Community management framework is needed to recover the full production and productivity potential of the Mediterranean in the interests first of all of our fishermen and also of other European citizens that want to benefit from the richness of the Mediterranean.
In concluding my speech, may I once again thank the rapporteur, as well as the chairman and members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent cooperation on this matter. Their proactive cooperation has indeed provided us with a substantial input that will help ensure sustainability for fisheries in the Mediterranean.
The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation of the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and the members of the Committee on Fisheries during our work on this important proposal.
I am happy to be able to inform you that we can accept 22 of the 34 amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries and other Members. Nine amendments of the 22 accepted, and in particular Amendments 2, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 were part of a compromise package agreed with the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Fisheries.
The compromise is not perfect in all details. Nonetheless a delicate balance of quite different views has been achieved without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal.
Let me turn to the other amendments tabled to the report before us. The Commission can also accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, which introduce new elements that either reinforce our proposal or make the timing of the introduction of certain measures more gradual. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 1, 3, 4, 19, and 27 to 34.
In particular, the concept of responsibility of nationals of Member States is already enshrined in the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy and should be maintained here. Amendments 1, 3 and 4 cannot therefore be accepted.
With respect to Amendments 19 and 33, which ask for the insertion of provisions for financial support for temporary fishing bans and for fishermen affected by the prohibition of certain fishing gear, the Commission believes that these proposals are not appropriate here, either because there are already rules on these matters under Community legislation and/or because these issues are to be dealt with in the framework of the European fisheries fund proposal.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 27, which could dilute the significance of setting a minimum landing size for the species covered by the proposed regulation. In the absence of a minimum size, there would not be any incentive for fishermen to avoid the areas of aggregation of juveniles or undersized organisms or to improve selectivity as regards fishing gear and practices. Moreover, the common market for fisheries products calls for a harmonised minimum size."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples