Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-171"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011025.5.4-171"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Let me begin by saying that the Greens support the proposal of the Commission for both the FIFG and the MAGP. We also agree with the rapporteur's amendments seeking to restrict the derogation for safety to vessels less than 12 metres in length and we would like to thank her for retabling these important amendments.
However, we are entirely opposed to the proposal as it has now emerged from the committee. The amendments are removing the most progressive elements that the Commission is proposing. After all, both the MAGP and the FIFG are already so full of loopholes that you actually sail
through. The proposal would simply close a couple of these more blatant loopholes.
Glancing through a scientific report on the status of fish stocks makes for very depressing reading these days. It does not matter whether it is ICES, or the STECF or any of the regional bodies such as NAFO. Everywhere you look fish stocks are over-exploited and far too often severely depleted. The EU has had to take emergency measures for three cod stocks and northern hake and it is clear that other stocks will soon be added to the list.
There is pretty much universal agreement that this deplorable situation is due to the excess capacity of the world's fishing fleets. The Commission is always reminding us of this, but the Member States and certain segments of the fishing industry are clearly in denial. The Community has agreed to several international instruments which seek to control fishing capacity and/or fishing effort. For instance, the FAO Code of Conduct provides that states should take measures to prevent or eliminate excess fishing capacity and should ensure that levels of fishing effort are in line with sustainable use of fisheries resources. But whenever the Commission tries to put these obligations into effect, they are shot down by Parliament and the Council.
Some have argued that it is not reasonable to try and change a programme in the last year or that certain aspects of the proposal are contrary to the idea of natural justice. The FIFG is due to continue until 2006 and so there are several years in which these reforms could bring some sort of positive effect. Surely it is far from natural justice to refuse to take action now and to continue as if the future is bright, only to have more and more stocks decrease and to impose even further temporary or permanent closures.
I would ask the Members of this House to consider the case of the northern cod stock off Newfoundland which provided 200 000 tonnes of fish every year for five centuries. In 1992, the Canadian Government had to close the fisheries even for subsistence fishing and there is still little if any sign of improvement in the stock. Is that the kind of future we want for our own coastal communities? The time has come for us to take a long-term rather than just a 6-months to 12-months view. We really have to deal with this issue and I would like to support what the Commission is proposing."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"The Atlantic Dawn"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples