Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-17-Speech-4-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020117.5.4-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The plan presented by the Commission unfairly penalises fishermen for whom cod is still a by-catch. The Commission is accusing the fishing industry of being to blame for causing stocks of the two species in question to decline, but it has, obviously, not taken proper account of the impact of industrial sand-eel fishing on the cod population. The sand-eel represents food to cod and it is the declining stocks of sand-eels that are causing the imbalance in the cod population.
As far as hake is concerned, the situation no longer appears to be as ‘disastrous’ as the Commission believed six months ago, and this is confirmed by the TAC that has been retained for 2002. The TAC is slightly higher than the level we were given in 2001. This is a timely reminder of the modesty attributed to biologists, whose opinions are the only ones governing the current CFP.
The ICES estimates seem to be needlessly alarmist in nature, especially as far as hake is concerned, the population of which, it seems, has begun to recover. The proposed measures are therefore not the right ones. Moreover, the Commission itself acknowledges that it is going beyond the scientific recommendations. Furthermore, there is, at a point when the Commission is making statements of intent regarding good governance in the Green Paper, a complete lack of consultation with the profession. What a difference there is between what is in theory said, and what in fact is done!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples