Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-21-Speech-3-521-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121121.31.3-521-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, this report is not about finning. Finning is an abominable practice involving catching sharks in order to remove their fins and discard the rest of their bodies, and has been prohibited in the European Union since 2003. The Commission proposal is to end the derogation from the ban, not on finning, but on the removal of fins on board, which is currently allowed under a special permit, with the vessel owner having to keep, offload and market all parts of the captured animal.
So why will these proposals not be unanimously adopted, and instead be rejected tomorrow by Parliament? Basically, I vehemently denounce the campaign of disinformation instigated by the Commission and actively pursued by the NGOs, which, in this specific case, have forgotten the nobility of their citizenship mission and have resorted to half-truths leading to false conclusions, explicit lies, and pressure via constant emails and circulars. They have also engaged in political terrorism, involving the persecutory identification of those who think differently and their personal defamation on social networks.
Pressure from the NGOs and lack of national interest in fishing will cause many MEPs to opt for the comfort vote. We will all end up losing in that case. On the eve of the common fisheries policy reform, which will inevitably lead to significant economic and social costs, the fleet will suffer further harm. The Commissioner is deluding herself, believing that reforms can be implemented against the sector, which sees her as a second Environment Commissioner and which sees itself as an orphan, fighting for the future using every available means. The NGOs that should be protecting sharks will lose out, because they will destroy the current excellent relationship between vessel owners and scientists, and they will prevent the extensive collection of data and an action plan for sharks. The MEPs who vote for comfort will increasingly become hostage to the NGOs. I am sorry for everyone.
Vessel owners want to continue removing fins on board. Why? Once the fins have been removed, the fins and bodies can be stored separately, which saves space in the hold and allows the duration of each trip and the available fishing time to be increased. This therefore reduces the number of returns to port, which saves fuel and reduces polluting emissions. It also avoids the partial thawing of sharks on land in order to separate the fins from the bodies, which go to different markets, and their subsequent refreezing. This therefore preserves the quality of the fish, protects consumer health and maintains the value of the catch.
These were legitimate arguments in the Commission’s view in 2003. What has changed? Is it because the Commission has remembered to move forward with this initiative? Is it because the European fleet is practising finning? No! In 2005 and 2006 the Commission and Parliament confirmed that finning did not exist, and now, having been frequently urged to present evidence of finning, neither the Commission nor the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can do so.
At a workshop in May, the Shark Alliance representative publicly confirmed that the European fleet was not practising finning. So is it because the species that the European fleet catches are at risk? No! Around 90 % of the European catch is blue shark, which is a species with unparalleled biological productivity. The Commission has said that the reason is to end finning. It is therefore deliberately causing confusion in the minds of the public. At the same time, having been urged to justify this approach, the Commission has eventually said that it has suspicions, and it has the audacity to try and legislate based on suspicions.
Despite the aberration of this position and the serious precedent that it would set, I tried to table proposals responding to all the concerns raised. If there are suspicions that finning is occurring, then we need to reinforce controls. I proposed the obligation to simultaneously land fins and bodies at all ports and the hiring, by vessel owners, of an independent body to check landings at ports where there is no permanent control.
If the problem is the derogation, then we should limit it. I proposed that the derogation should apply only to freezer vessels, to the exclusion of wet fish vessels. If the concern is about shark stocks, then we should arrange to obtain scientific data. I proposed the bases for a shark action plan, with the obligation for the extensive collection of data on all species caught.
The Commission said no to everything.
Meanwhile, in its strange determination to move forward with this proposal, it has forgotten to assess the socioeconomic impacts. However, the sector has assessed these impacts, and estimates, on a conservative basis, that the Iberian fleet will suffer a loss of EUR 14 million per year.
The Commissioner’s proposal is unjustified and harmful. All my proposals fully respond to all the suspicions and concerns."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples