Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-16-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041216.6.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drawing up, discussing and voting on this report in committee was quite a surprising learning process, showing that it is never too late to learn and to carry on learning.
I tackled an activity with which I was only superficially familiar and, in particular, I supplemented all the theoretical knowledge that documents and studying could provide. By contacting and receiving information from those connected with the activity, those who make it their difficult livelihood, those who study it thoroughly and seriously and those who have responsibilities within it, I learnt a lot and I know that there is still a lot to learn.
I started with the idea that we need to protect the environment, which is subject to attacks that are likely to get worse, and I found three questions taking shape: which predatory activities should be moderated or banned? Within what limits? Under what jurisdiction? After much listening and considerable thought, I became convinced that a ban on bottom trawling would not be enough to protect coral reefs and other formations, among which I would highlight thermal vents. It was proved to me that bottom gill-netting was equally predatory or even more so. That is why I explicitly included it. Why is there such resistance to its inclusion? Is it because powerful interests use that method? The Commission argues that it is because there is insufficient scientific evidence to prove the evils of the technique. Even if that were so, however, the precautionary principle should apply. The delimitation of the areas to be protected is defined in the Commission’s proposal by the criterion of degrees of longitude and latitude. I consider this option to be political and not technical, or at least not only technical but with a strong political meaning.
Not using the criterion of miles offshore means that the connection with national exclusive economic zones can be ignored or minimised as something to be forgotten. In view of the negotiations, after the period that ended in November 2003, to change the regulatory limits from 200 to 12 and then to 50 and finally to 100 miles, the failure of the Commission proposal to consider the situation created in the zone between the 100 and 200 mile limits is, in my view, serious and needs to be remedied.
All that brings us to the key issue of jurisdiction, starting with the simple omission of the national jurisdictions of Spain and Portugal, which was not omitted even in the previous proposal dealing with the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction over the reef formations of the Darwin Mounds off the Scottish coast. Might that mean that jurisdiction is attributed to the United Kingdom but is denied or forgotten – or hidden – in the case of Spain and Portugal? We are thus arriving at some really sensitive, fundamental issues, of the kind that life imposes when we get down to practicalities.
The principle of the European Union’s exclusive competence over the conservation of marine biological resources is thus enshrined in this proposal even before the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty. Such a decision is highly debatable and, for us, unacceptable, insofar as it represents the replacement of national and regional competence over part of the national territory, albeit under the sea, with exclusive Community competence.
The points that are clearly under discussion here are as follows: firstly, the balance between the exploitation of resources and their conservation. Secondly, this balance was achieved when and where fishing was not industrial and predatory and the conservation of marine biological resources was under national and regional jurisdiction on the basis of proximity, and there are therefore no grounds to replace this jurisdiction in order to remedy incorrect or lax practices. Thirdly, there are two kinds of fishing – costal fishing, which is, more or less, or still is almost traditional, and industrial fishing. The former is penalised, with a terrible impact on society and the regional economies, by the predatory nature of the latter, which, because of its economic and political power, will more easily continue its activities. Fourthly, the negotiations that are starting on total allowable catches and quotas are an indictment of equal treatment for what is different and a refutation of strategies which, on the pretext of protecting the environment, help the ‘big fish’ to swallow up the ‘little fish’ – and the word ‘fish’ can be replaced with others such as ‘boats’, ‘fleets’, ‘interests’ or ‘countries’.
My report and the draft amendments that I have submitted to the House for approval have the same intention as I have tried to make clear in this speech, in the hope that this House will vote for it. I am grateful for your vote and I am also grateful for all the help and collaboration that I have had in tabling this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples