Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-17-Speech-4-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020117.4.4-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all I want to say thank you to Mr Lavarra for an excellent piece of work in connection with the report. I am able to support the conclusions overall, and I would particularly call upon us to create new development opportunities in the European fisheries sector by integrating environmental considerations into the common fisheries policy. The forthcoming revision of the common fisheries policy will also ensure much more far-reaching implementation of the common decisions in all the Member States. We must dare to talk openly about what fish, as ‘raw materials’, mean for the fishing industry in those countries which have extensive fisheries, and we must also put the regional importance of fisheries into the balance alongside the risks involved and application of the precautionary principle. Moreover, we must also recognise the major contribution that fishermen make to daily life.
I will concentrate, then, on a few points I disagree about. I want to begin by saying thank you to Mr Stevenson who has talked in very clear terms about the experiences of the Committee on Fisheries’ delegation in Denmark and about how, in Denmark, it has been possible completely to remove the mystique from sand eel fishing, as well as to rebut the many assertions to the effect that it is industrial fishing that is destroying the food chain. We therefore need to state that there is now no scientific basis for saying that industrial fishing has a negative effect on the marine environment. Without a sound scientific basis, it is rash to want to cut back on industrial fishing, something which would have major consequences for jobs in the fisheries sector. What we must do, therefore, is to strive to obtain a broader and better scientific basis in this area too.
Nor can I support item 9, which is factually incorrect in as much as it would be particularly unreasonable not to use fishmeal and fish oil, which are products very rich in protein and which are of very great value. What is more, the European fishmeal industry has made very great strides towards developing a technique for eliminating dioxin. In other words, it would really be much healthier in the short term if we were to think in terms of using fishmeal to feed fish within aquacultures rather than, if I may say so, in terms of their receiving it through the normal food chain out in the oceans where, right now, the dioxin content is unfortunately higher than we would wish. In this context, it is important to note that dioxin does not come naturally from the sea and is not found naturally in fish, but is a form of pollution that comes from the land. There are unfortunately too many food scandals, and it is therefore also important for us to point out that the fisheries sector is as a rule the victim and that it has not been possible subsequently to prove that it is this sector that is liable for the scandals or occurrences in question.
I must also say that the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is unable to support item 14, since we are opposed to financial aid for the construction of new vessels. As I was very pleased to hear Mr Stevenson also do, I must naturally call for us to support the two amendments I have tabled on behalf of the ELDR Group."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples