Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-01-Speech-3-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000301.9.3-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, behind the report, which is an honest one, by Mrs Attwooll, which we shall vote for, we see the European fisheries policy. It is not easy to manage because clearly in an open sea, which is immense and without borders, it is not easy to manage fish on the move. We are trying to manage a policy of catches and in so doing we are creating injustice. It is indeed a good idea to wish to prevent the depletion of fragile resources, but what is the point if Europe restricts its catches and world catches increase? What is the point of banning European drift nets in the
or elsewhere, if Japan, Korea and Tunisia use them and land fish here which we are not allowed to catch? What is the point of destroying the French fishing fleet, at Sète or elsewhere, for example, if every year France has to spend two billion euros on importing fish caught and landed, while our fishermen are not allowed to catch it. What is more, the movement of fish is like CO2 or like capital, it is not European, but world-wide. Brussels, which wanted to do away with nations on the pretext that they were unsuited to the task, now in turn finds itself unsuited to managing a resource which itself is an international asset.
Together with Mrs Attwooll, I am in favour of collecting scientific data, and of fair and accurate checks, on condition that they do not vary according to the severity or the laxness of the administrations. I am in favour of enlightened management by marine scientists, like Professor Aubert, or others, that will make it possible to discover that the basic problems are not so much to do with industrial fishing – although it plays a serious and negative part – but more to do with plankton, the large underwater hot mass or cold mass rivers, which have a much greater effect than human influence. But to enlighten the decision makers, let us practise honest science, without the ulterior motive of having the European Union finance excuses to destroy our fishing boats. For if we must preserve the shoals of fish, we must also preserve the ports and the fishermen.
Instead of always following behind the United States, in Seattle, in Kosovo, in Iraq, perhaps the Europe of Brussels could suggest, over and above the international fishing organisations that exist in the North Atlantic, in the Pacific, over and above the regulation of tuna, cod or other things, that Europe should take the initiative and organise an international conference on fishing, a kind of Montego Bay of the fisheries resources which would be held between Peruvians, Japanese, Canadians, Russians, Europeans, and we could manage the fisheries resources scientifically as an asset common to humanity. That would be good internationalism as opposed to the bad internationalism, as practised with the free exchange areas and other false friends of the OECD."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples