Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.5.3-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the euthanasia plan for coastal fishing in Europe which Commissioner Fischler has just calmly outlined to us must be rejected outright, both for its general philosophy and its technical structure. This plan is, first and foremost, characteristic of a dreadful supranational approach, demonstrating an off-hand technocratic arrogance that could spell – following a broad consultation of professionals for the sake of appearances – the condemnation pure and simple of an industry due to the widespread abusive use of deficient and questionable technical assessments, that are both incomplete, biased and often misleading. I refer you to the cases of anchovy and black pollack in the Atlantic.
This plan is absurd and contradictory: although it claims to conserve fish stocks, it actually condemns one of the most restrictive and cautious fishing industries in terms of conserving fish stocks, to the advantage of third country fleets, which show the least respect for conservation, and which will be called on, if we support Mr Fischler, to supply, almost single-handedly, Europe’s booming fish market. This plan is dangerous because it is unworkable. It is based on a key concept, namely fishing effort, which cannot be measured by any reliable indicator or statistical instrument – and you are aware of this, Commissioner Fischler. Lastly, the plan reflects the growing contradictions within the Union and the danger of adopting uniform solutions for European industries. What gives those Member States that have sacrificed their coastal fishing for the sake of industrial fishing, the right to prevent those that wish to preserve coastal fishing as a fundamental element of their identity and land management from doing so?
We therefore need the powerful forces within our Member States to come together, we need genuine action from those who support fishing, to call for the Council to condemn unequivocally, on 11 June, the new CFP proposed by Mr Fischler and to demand an ambitious plan in its place. This plan must be the exact opposite of the Commission’s assumptions: which are the unsubstantiated prediction of a disastrous future for fish stocks and the refusal to take into account the fact that other factors apart from fishing affect these stocks. By recognising our lack of knowledge regarding fish stocks, which was in fact admitted in the Commission’s Green Paper, this voluntary plan must provide for considerable development of independent research at the Commission and close cooperation between professionals and scientists. We can thus refine the quota system and make the destruction of new vessels unnecessary. This plan must also include the essential element of fleet modernisation, which fishermen themselves are not in a position to undertake. Public aid is therefore necessary and legitimate if we wish to avoid further accidents caused by ageing vessels. Like the agriculture plan, this plan, Mr President, must provide for the ‘setting-up of young fishermen’ and ‘traceability’ from the fisherman to the consumer. This is the only way to preserve coastal fishing which is of great importance to many Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples