Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060515.17.1-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to extend warm thanks to Commissioner Borg for the excellent cooperation and also for the way in which we were able to look into the technical opportunities. I will return in due course to a number observations pertaining to amendments.
In a nutshell, I am pleased that the Commissioner has accepted a large number of amendments. As for trade policy and a number of other areas, I am convinced that we will now manage to achieve much better eel stocks in the European Union in five or ten years’ time. This is something that will benefit everyone, not only the public, but also fisheries, recreational fishermen and everyone who cares about eel. I would thank the fellow Members once again for the excellent teamwork during the preparation of this report and I am looking forward to the debate that will follow and also the vote on my report.
First, though, I should like to consider the object of this debate. After all, this debate about the regulation for the recovery of eel stocks shows that the European Parliament can lay down legislation, even in areas where it only has advisory powers. Although fishing in inland waters is strictly speaking a matter for the Member States and not for the European Union, in close cooperation with my fellow MEPs and Mr Borg, the European Commissioner for fisheries and maritime affairs, we have managed quite literally to give eels a helping hand.
What is so special about eel is that it is both a freshwater and salt water fish. While the regulation for fisheries is a matter for the EU, inland waterways fall within the remit of the Member States. As such, the eel has been overlooked for years. Since there was no legislation at European or national level, the eel slipped, time after time, through the legislator’s nets.
Eel stocks have now declined dramatically. Over the past 50 years, stocks of young eel at sea, so-called glass eel, have declined by more than 95%. With only 25% of adult eel left, they have not fared much better. It is therefore high time we sprung into action to save the European eel, and a broad and comprehensive approach is desperately needed. For that reason, I would also thank Commissioner Borg for the swiftness with which he has translated Parliament’s own-initiative report into a proposal for a regulation. After all, only a unanimous stance of all those involved, including professional fisheries, recreational fisheries, regional and national authorities, environmental and nature organisations, can bring about a U-turn. It is therefore unique that the new initiative to rescue eel should be supported by all those parties in the manner I will describe to you now.
In order to get eel stocks to recover, it has been decided to reduce eel-fishing by half. Member States can, however, instead of this reduction by half – which, in practice would often lead to closure – also draft a management plan for the recovery of eel. They can do so for the entire territory, a region or for a river basin. This management plan could become the ultimate form of cooperation between all parties involved. This does not require any action from on high – from Brussels or the Member States’ capitals – but from the bottom up, involving citizens and people on the job.
This method can regulate the exports of glass eel and is eminently usable for European rivers, canals and lakes. Also, this recovery plan hugely promotes technical measures, such as hydro-electric power stations, sluices and dikes, thus making unhindered fish migration possible.
The broad, north-to-south, support in Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries is the key to successful decision-making in the European Fisheries Council. If the European Commission adopts the adjustments proposed by Parliament, as the Commissioner indicated with regard to a large number of points, successful decision-making can be guaranteed with a wide support base – from Sweden to Spain – of fishermen, recreational fishermen and environmental organisations alike. That also means that the Commission and Council should not let this unique opportunity slip.
I am particularly grateful to the Commissioner for adopting a large number of the amendments. I am also indebted to him for the initiatives he has taken with Mr Mandelson, particularly with regard to international trade policy, in order to better regulate not only the catch of glass eel but also the exports in this area. This offers prospects for glass eel as a venture, in European waters as well as elsewhere, which also makes it possible to work towards sustainability.
The Commissioner was right to observe that Parliament has deleted a specific sustainability criterion from an amendment and has indicated that he, in tandem with technical experts, would like to find out how an objective measuring method can be arrived at after all. I welcome this, for this also reflects the mood in Parliament. The specific number 40%, however, did cause problems here and there, and perhaps regional differences can also be taken into consideration in this respect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples