Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-19-Speech-5-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000519.4.5-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, as you can see, we are dealing thoroughly with the conservation of the fish population. A short while ago, we were still dealing with measures within the sphere of NAFO. We will now depart from the subject of offshore fishing in the ocean and go into detail on fishing in EU waters. It is not always just whales and seals which the public wants protected, and which attract, without doubt, greater attention from them. No, we must also direct our attention now and then to less popular species which do not look as cute. Who as a child has ever taken a carpetshell (
) in his arms as he would a soft toy? We certainly have a heart for children, but nothing concerns us quite so much as whether the juvenile fish are thriving. We are therefore always prepared to take the necessary measures to protect them.
We must protect the periphyton of marine organisms now in order to preserve all species. The regulation which we are dealing with is not a new one. In fact, it is being amended again today for the fifth time. In view of the developing populations, however, it must be amended time and time again in accordance with the requirements at a particular moment in time. The mechanisms are improved, and new minimum sizes and fishing methods to protect species are established, as is deemed necessary by the fisherman on the spot. In the end it is the theoretical expert who must give way to practice.
We do not have any objections to the amendments which the Commission is proposing, right down to the last detail. They represent the latest technical and scientific developments. I think the Commission likes to hear this, and it is also therefore appropriate to emphasise the work done by the experts dealing with this in the Commission. Ultimately, Parliament has no interest in branding the Commission as its general scapegoat. On the contrary, I would like to use this report to show that things can also be done differently. The Committee on Fisheries is particularly benefiting from positive cooperation with the Commission and its services. This cooperation is imperative for the preservation of sea populations. Who, apart from the Commission, should monitor them and protect this natural resource? It is not always possible to fall back on artificially bred substitutes, which furthermore have been genetically manipulated wherever possible. Does it sound healthy to you, for instance, when I say that it is possible to breed super salmon which grow eight times faster than before? Quantity instead of quality? The awareness that we need to do something to preserve a healthy variety of food and the willingness to take appropriate action are the needs of the moment.
We cannot go onto a fishing ground like the Huns, destroy it, and then simply move with the caravan onto the next one without taking responsibility for what is left behind. If the matter is worth something to us, economically as well as ecologically, we must also take appropriate action on our own doorstep and not just in the North-West Atlantic. These measures are a step in the right direction. I do not think that tourists, on boat trips in the future, will be able to watch sand eels as well as seals being reared, but maybe, in a few years’ time, we will once again be able to say, with a clear conscience, that we can fish for this species because its preservation is guaranteed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples