Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-307"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.9.3-307"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I must start by regretting the absence of Commissioner Fischler. I believe this debate is important enough to deserve his presence here today.
Rigorous, transparent, verified scientific reports, carried out together with the industry, should be the first pillar of the CFP reform in order to have credibility in the conservation of our fishery species. We need to diagnose the true state of the stocks precisely and accurately, because otherwise we could be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The European Union should be a global example of marine research, but it is not, not even – and I say this to Commissioner Fischler – with his proposed reform, which pushes science into the background.
Last week at a meeting of marine scientists, Mr Robin Cook, of the Aberdeen marine research laboratory and an advisory member of the ICES, stated that the fisheries reform proposed was based on scientific reports that were very poor and which lacked transparency.
John Molloy of the Dublin Marine Institute – as you can see I do not mention any Spanish scientists here – said that ‘fishermen are scientists’ and that we need to use the raft of first-hand information they have, which is currently being ignored.
The Canadian scientist McGuire has also rejected the hake catastrophe reports. The industry rejects them outright. We are aware that the ICES and the Scientific and Technical Committee on Fisheries do not agree, and they again brought up the review of current hake reports at Lisbon and Copenhagen. Mr Fischler, without an economic, social and regional impact assessment, proposes equating cod and hake, which are very different species and very different situations; and he adopts drastic, irreversible measures to cut down the fleet as if there were no other alternative measures that would maintain the stock while we wait for conclusive reports. I call on the Commissioner to think it over for once.
The Committee on Fisheries approved Amendment 1 – I see the rapporteur is against separating the two species – and I hope the House will adopt it. If not, I hope the Council can bring it back in.
We want to protect stocks but not at just any price, not through just any measure. We want the ecological reports to include economic and social reports, and we must take into account the industry which has been fishing in the same waters for several generations, and they do not understand the Commission’s proposal, in view of the results they are getting, and they want other biological reference points to be selected that are broad in scope and more rigorous.
I therefore call on the Commission to go deeper into CFP reform and marine research, and to devote more human and material resources to it. I call on it to review the proposal for hake, since the industry that depends on it demands more transparency, more participation, more dialogue, more objectivity and more reliability before it will accept the proposals that the Commission puts before us."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples