Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-317"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:CITES2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021023.8.3-317"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-23-Speech-3-3182
lpv:speaker	lp:Dorette Corbey2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the protection of biodiversity is one of our most important, but also one of our most difficult, tasks. Time and time again we find ourselves in a situation in which it seems that now is not the time to opt for biodiversity. Time and time again there are good reasons to abandon, for the time being, strict and specific measures for the protection of endangered species. This is the case now. I am talking specifically about African elephants. I believe that there are good reasons for not imposing a total ban on the ivory trade. Firstly, in accordance with scientific advice, the African elephant simply does not fulfil the criteria; the elephant population is growing and is healthy. Secondly, I am not convinced that a total ban would mean that poaching would cease. A ban might lead to a fuelling of illegal trade and push up the price. That will not help any elephant. Thirdly, the idea of the destruction of ivory meets with considerable resistance. Destruction goes against every notion of sustained use. Why should we have to destroy a natural, valued and valuable material such as ivory? Finally, I am convinced that protection does not work without commitment from the local authorities and local population. We can try and prescribe laws for others from our ivory towers here in Strasbourg. We can preach morals from our ivory pulpit, but we have to realise that it does not work like that. Five countries in southern Africa have presented alternative plans. They have gained experience and have also had some success. We ought to take their arguments seriously at least. Conservation is not something that can be imposed by the international community, and we should not want that to be the case. There are, therefore, good reasons not to transfer the African elephant to Appendix I tomorrow. However there are also good reasons to do so, and that is sending a political signal. The signal that the European Parliament takes the protection of biodiversity seriously. That the European Parliament is now committing to going all out to preserve biodiversity within the European Union. To summarise, I can reluctantly approve the resolution, but, as far as I am concerned, it must incorporate a political pledge – the pledge that we ourselves will also do something about biodiversity. That we must try to find a solution that will also work for the African peoples."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph