Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-317"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.9.3-317"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the floor in this House to support the proposal by the Committee on Fisheries, principally to uphold the need to exclude northern hake stocks from the scope of the proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of cod and hake stocks. I do so because the situations of the cod and hake stocks are very different. If they are not excluded, we will be putting at risk thousands of jobs and an industry on which many coastal communities in the European Union depend for their living, on no verified, irrefutable technical-scientific grounds.
This socio-economic consequence should be a good enough reason to make us think, but there are other reasons too: the proposal is based on an alleged scientific study, but by November 2001 the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries was pointing out that the precautionary points of reference used by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea were not currently valid and, besides, recommended that they should be reviewed immediately. As nobody, no administration, has a monopoly on common sense and doing the right thing, there is an obvious need for a scientific advisory appeal mechanism, a need for peer review and, of course, a need to listen to and analyse in depth what the affected sector seriously has to say with their verified and verifiable arguments and studies. When decisions of great social significance are to be adopted, they need to be very well grounded; the studies on which they are based have to be irrefutable.
All that has been said so far, ladies and gentlemen, does not mean opposing other serious and responsible alternative measures for conserving and improving hake stocks until such time as the studies have been completed and confirmed, but we must not support measures that may have irreversible consequences.
It must, of course, be possible to apply the precautionary principle without causing economic disasters or social upheavals. A balance is possible, and the Commission must seek it. A first step will be verified, confirmed studies, which will show we are quite right and provide us with arguments. Things have to be done properly, especially when our fishermen are clearly at risk of being seriously harmed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples