Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-16-Speech-4-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040916.2.4-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as this will probably be the last time that I will speak in a debate on the environment to which Mrs Wallström will respond, I should like to thank her for her commitment and efforts over the past five years. I am glad she is not going to be leaving us.
Faced with the enormity of problems concerning the environment, she once said that we cannot cry about everything all the time. That is very true, but, when we consider how we are diminishing life on this planet, it is certainly worth at least some tears.
Virtually no animal on this planet can exist without the agreement of humans. We are the dominant species. If animals are to survive, they do so because we allow them to do so, because there is no economic incentive to kill them or because we actively want them to survive. In nearly all cases, habitats have to be managed and somehow protected. This is how mankind now manages the natural order. The pity is that we are terrible managers. We cannot see beyond the present: we think everything is still there for the taking and need not consider the consequences. We preside over one of the world's great periods of extinction.
Within a generation we have wiped out a vast proportion of the animals of Africa and now we are doing the same to the seas. Shark numbers in many cases are said to have dropped by 90% since Spielberg's film 'Jaws' was released. The great white shark is the ocean's top predator, the lion of the seas. To lose a creature that has changed very little in tens of millions of years would not only be a tragedy but would further change the ecology of the waters, upsetting a balance already damaged by over-fishing and certainly entailing damaging consequences. Trade in its parts must be curtailed.
However, the issue of land animals in Africa highlights the complexities involved in securing solutions. We know there has been a huge loss in elephant numbers, much of which is attributable to poaching. However, curtailing the ivory trade seems to have been successful in preventing a complete wipe-out. Yet the picture is mixed: elephant numbers are recovering in some areas, but this causes the destruction of the natural habitat. As the government of Botswana pointed out in a very well argued paper, numbers have to be managed if the competing demands of people, vegetation and habitats are to be met.
In principle, I have no objection to increasing the trade in ivory selectively, provided that the money raised is for conservation purposes. For the same reasons I have no objection in principle to trophy hunting, although I cannot understand the mentality of rich people who want to kill great creatures. My concern is that the money will not be spent in this way and that the increase in the ivory trade will stimulate poaching everywhere, with catastrophic results.
I hope Member States will stand firm and support a total ban, but they should also be realistic and accommodating. If we in Europe want to deny poor nations the right to sell harvested ivory legitimately and sustainably, should we not be contributing financially to meet our desires and their needs?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples