Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-24-Speech-4-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050224.4.4-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, at first glance, this proposal to send surplus EU boats to the disaster-hit areas, where so many vessels have been destroyed, seems an extremely good idea. On further consideration, however, all of the difficulties come to mind and, on still further reflection, the question arises as to whether the proposal would create more problems than it would solve and, ultimately, of whether the costs might not outweigh the benefits.
Firstly: what would be obtained in return for the money? If an amount similar to the total cost were spent on manufacturing boats locally, the benefit to local fisheries would be many times greater. It would also have the effect of supporting the local economy and the local shipbuilding industry, which need support in this emergency.
Secondly: the practicalities. Is it really so practical to collect these boats and transport them to the region? How should we handle distribution and allocation?
Thirdly, there is the matter of ecology. Completely different kinds of fishing are involved, different kinds of equipment are used and different catches are fished for. Sending a completely different kind of boat from those traditionally used in the area would be in danger of making fishing less sustainable and less environmentally friendly.
Fourthly: do the countries intended as recipients of these boats really want them? The answer to this question is, of course, the one we have received from the UN body FAO, which coordinates such matters: ‘no, they do not’. No request for these boats has been received; instead, the countries concerned want to be able to build their own boats, using their local traditions and their local techniques.
Having considered and twice re-considered this proposal, it becomes quite clear that it was a good idea but one that, on closer reflection, should be abandoned. It could undoubtedly be improved by adopting the amendments, especially those by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. This would make it a better proposal. Most sensible of all, however, would no doubt be for the Commission to understand the situation, withdraw the proposal and instead try to persuade the Member States to provide at least equivalent sums for increasing the number of boats locally in the countries hit by the disaster. That would bring greater benefit to those we all wish to help, that is to say the victims of the terrible tsunami disaster."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples