Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-14-Speech-3-411"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071114.37.3-411"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I too would like to begin by acknowledging the work done by our colleague Mr Braghetto in this report. However, as I mentioned at the time during the Fisheries Committee discussions, on the basis of the reports being drawn up by a large number of scientists, environmental organisations and even some areas of the sector, I believe the title of the report should be changed.
Instead of referring to a supposed regulation of the recovery plan for bluefin tuna, we should call it the non-recovery plan or, better still, the plan for the annihilation of tuna. Let’s be clear about this: when the misnamed recovery plan was adopted at ICCAT a year ago in Dubrovnik the Scientific Committee warned even at that stage, and I quote, ‘Generally speaking the preliminary results indicate that it is unlikely that the measures adopted, although a step in the right direction, will fully achieve the objective of the plan’. It added, ‘If implemented perfectly and if future recruitment is approximately at the level of the 1990s and is not affected by the recent level in the reproductive biomass, there is a 50% probability of recovery in 2023 under the current regulations’.
In other words, in the event either of less than perfect implementation or of recruitment which falls below recent levels in line with the reduction in the reproductive biomass, or both, the objectives of the recovery plan will be difficult to achieve.
I reiterate that the basis for my speech is scientific reports. As if that were not enough, the plan, which has already been implemented provisionally in 2007, has gone so badly in practice that the European Union has exceeded its quota by 26%, which, in an unprecedented move, has forced legal proceedings to be taken against all the countries which failed to comply with the rules, especially France and Italy.
I am of course concerned to know how another country, Spain, was able to export almost 9 000 tonnes of tuna in 2006 when it only declared having captured 4 700 tonnes, as organisations such as Greenpeace or Adena have noted.
Finally, it would also be interesting to hear what measures the Commission and governments intend to take to control and even reduce the size of the fishing fleet, given that it would be difficult, to say the least, to believe it possible to reduce catches when our vessels are increasing in number and quality, vessels which in the majority of cases are living off European subsidies. Perhaps the ICCAT meeting being held at the moment in Antalya, Turkey, which my colleagues Marie-Hélène Aubert and Michael Earle are attending, will be able to provide us with some answers.
To my mind, however, the immediate conclusion is both simple and alarming: all the indications are that the situation with regard to the stock is very much worse than the most optimistic forecasts. Some even say that we have already gone past the point of no return. In other words, given the circumstances, I find it difficult to believe that the current plan should be called a recovery plan rather than something else."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples