Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-07-Speech-3-264"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-05-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Management of deep-sea fish stocks (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080507.19.3-264"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-05-07-Speech-3-2652
lpv:speaker	lp:Carmen Fraga Estévez2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PECH (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; AGRI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Partido Popular (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya) (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I also think that there are ample reasons to support the amendments tabled for this report, and that the report is very valuable. With regard to the ban being discussed here on fishing at a depth of more than 1 000 metres, the Committee on Fisheries already made it very clear in another report that was much more directly connected with vulnerable marine ecosystems than this one is, in which linking depth to sensitive ecosystems was rejected by a large majority. Vulnerable habitats will have to be protected where they are found, irrespective of whether they are at a 1 000, 600 or 200 metres, and not based on whether they fall on one side or the other of an artificial line drawn in an office in Brussels. This is also the doctrine of the FAO, which in its preparatory work on the guidelines for the protection of vulnerable ecosystems ruled out using depth as a criterion, precisely because it considered it to be arbitrary, lacking in scientific basis and more fanciful than anything, because, as I have said, since it does not protect coral or seamounts that are at a lesser depth, it would immediately wipe off the map fisheries that have been operating for some time without any problems, such as, for example cutlassfish fisheries in the Azores or black halibut in the area regulated by the NAFO. These are just two examples. However, by supporting the amendments we would introduce greater consistency to legislative processes, as we are now in the process of preparing the future legislation on discards to be applied to all Community fleets. I therefore do not think that this is the time to jeopardise certain fleets with regulations on discards which could ultimately result in inconsistencies with the general rules, which goes against the practice of better regulation to the benefit of the public."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph