Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-09-Speech-2-318"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100209.15.2-318"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, my first general remark is to say that I really appreciate the contribution of all the speakers concerning all the objectives ahead of discussions at the conference.
I can assure you that the Commission will be in favour of sustainable trade for the benefits of both biodiversity and the communities which need to live in harmony with the species concerned.
Now, a few more specific comments in relation to your remarks; first of all, as I explained, the overall position of the Commission on bluefin tuna will be adopted very soon. This is an important matter because it relates mainly to the catches by the EU fishing fleets. It has been felt that it is more appropriate that, instead of the outgoing Commission, the new Commission takes a clear position on this issue because the new Commission will be in charge of defending or promoting the EU position at the conference.
I am really confident that this proposal will ensure a sustainable future for both this species and the associated fishing industry. This will need to balance short-term and long-term perspectives on this issue. But, on more specific items and the questions raised by the distinguished Members of Parliament, on the question of support which could potentially be given to the fishermen affected, I think that we should stress that the Commission would be ready to assess the possibility of providing such support to the maximum possible extent, but we also need to remember that budgetary reallocations have been decided for many years and that we would also need to assess the financial consequences while we have a rigid financial budget for the perspective 2007-2013.
There is one specific issue concerning the proposal to include bluefin tuna in Appendix II and I think it is important to note that there are very specific provisions in CITES which would apply in the case of an Appendix II. There would be a lot of legal and technical discussions on what such a listing in Appendix II would actually mean. The practical impact of such a listing would be uncertain. That is why we need to think of what the practical consequences of putting bluefin tuna in Appendix II would be.
Regarding Mrs Bearder’s question on elephants, there are procedural weaknesses in the motions of Tanzania and Zambia but in our legal assessment, these flaws cannot be sufficient ground to procedurally reject these motions
.
Finally, I will comment on Mr Kelly’s question. Is the Commission happy with scientific evidence on many issues? I think it is difficult for the Commission to question scientific evidence because it would mean that the Commission has better scientific or research capacity than the research institutes, which is not the case. That is why it is sometimes very difficult to take a position on the scientific evidence."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples