Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040210.8.2-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, on 27 June 2003 the Commission published a new proposal aimed at guaranteeing the sustainable recovery of the Northern hake stock and its reduction within what is considered the safe biological limit, a precautionary level of biomass which is set at 165 000 tonnes.
The first innovation, which we should be grateful for, is that the Commission has finally decided to separate stocks of hake and cod into two different plans. There was no other choice following the clear improvement in hake stocks, a direct result of the management measures applied by the sector over the last two years.
When we move on to the analysis of the measures proposed, we discover that the Commission is not taking account of the best scientific information available, nor is it dispelling the doubts of the fisheries industry, since once again there has been no dialogue with the scientists and the proposal has been drawn up without the serious participation of professionals. The Commission is working on the basis of scientific opinions the content of which it does not specify and which, as the rapporteur, Mr Souchet, quite rightly says in his explanatory statement, has not been revealed to the Committee on Fisheries either, despite our having requested it.
The precautionary biomass should have been established on the basis of these scientific reports which do not exist. Neither does it appear that this biomass is in proportion to the state of the stock affected, since the latest independent scientific reports and observations of professionals demonstrate that it is not below the safe biological limits.
Neither do we have scientific evaluations from the ICES which guarantee to us that the reduction of fishing effort proposed will lead to an effective reduction in catches, nor an evaluation of the effects of the technical recovery measures – which I referred to earlier – which have been applied for two years and have had such good results.
Neither does the Commission’s proposal seek a balance between biological recovery and socio-economic repercussions. Once again, I must point out that the approach is based on exclusively biological considerations and does not take account of the socio-economic context when recommending the re-establishment of stocks within one year, rather than adopting a progressive approach, based on multi-annual TACs, and this is incompatible with the capacity for survival of the companies in this sector.
The technical measures, which, as we have said, have produced good results, are completely overlooked. What Mr Souchet proposes in his report, namely the replacement of this recovery plan with a multi-annual management plan, is the result not just of the – I believe correct – analysis of the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries and of our own debate, but also of the guidelines already defined by the European Parliament itself and Mr Souchet in relation to the management of fragile stocks: the application of simple and flexible rules, such as multi-annual TACs, rather than rigid systems with uncertain effects, such as measures based on the fishing effort."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples