Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-04-Speech-3-259"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080604.26.3-259"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, we are obviously all in favour of protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems from destructive fishing practices.
In fact, I am so much in favour of it that I would even advocate protecting them against all destructive practices, including non-fishing practices. Ultimately, however, we already know that in these cases it is up to the fisheries sector to lead the way and set an example.
As I have already said in relation to the report by Mrs Miguélez on deep-sea fish stocks, I think that our main concern should be to protect all vulnerable ecosystems that have been identified as such, wherever they are, not just those that are lucky enough to be below a depth of 1 000 metres.
As Mr Freitas has already said, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has ruled out the depth criterion as being arbitrary and non-scientific, and the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), including the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO), have even ruled out the 2 000 metre rule, without even considering a 1 000 metre limit, as in their opinion the limit would serve no purpose, so they have removed it.
However, my question, Commissioner, is as follows: you have said that this is going to be applied to the fleets that fish on the Patagonian shelf. Recently representatives of the Ocean Institute were here presenting assessment studies in which they did not detect any vulnerable marine ecosystems in that area. I would therefore like to ask you whether you are going to continue to insist on applying this proposal to the Community fleet that fishes in that area.
Finally I would like to discuss the subject of observers, regarding which I think that the report by Mr Freitas has provided a considerable dose of reason. I think, and I am in agreement with the report, that it is important to have observers who are scientists, as they have to evaluate vulnerable marine ecosystems, which cannot be done by just any observer.
As has been said by the scientists themselves, however, it seems absurd to have one per boat, because as well as emptying our oceanography institutes, there would be no point in having one per boat, as it is much more important to consider planned and organised sampling programmes that are maintained over time, which is what is going to give us a good monitoring overview of these fisheries.
I would therefore be grateful, Commissioner, if you could answer my questions, and I call for support for the report by Mr Freitas."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples