Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-16-Speech-4-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030116.2.4-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is a good, robust and well–crafted report on an important sector in which – since we import more than half of the fish we consume – we have a very long way to go, in which traceability is best ensured through domestic production and in which, there being an upper limit on resources, aquaculture enables us to create vital additional jobs in our coastal regions.
The rapporteur is right to condemn the Green Paper’s failure to mention aquaculture and to emphasise the shortcomings of the Commission’s communication of September 2002. What above all characterises the aquaculture sector is the effort in terms of time and input that needs to be devoted to research, effort that more often than not is disproportionate to the opportunities for funding young family businesses which have little in the way of capital and which are obliged to operate in a context of intense competition and unstable prices. For example, the French company managed by Michel Adrien from the Vendée region, which laid the foundations for the European turbot industry, had to invest FRF 2.5 million each year for ten years in pure research before it succeeded in mastering the technique for reproducing turbot in captivity.
Can and should research programmes of this kind, which are costly, time–consuming, entailing considerable uncertainties, both technical and commercial, addressing issues of basic biology, be undertaken entirely by private companies? I do not think so. I believe, on the contrary, that a large part of this type of research must be conducted with the aid of public funds, as must the ongoing renovation of the vessels that are the tools of the small–scale fishing industry. It is quite clear that, in such cases, public funding cannot be equated with a distortion of competition.
On the subject of research, I am thinking in particular of that relating to the new vaccines that enable the risks associated with the use of antibiotics to be removed. This is a crucial issue for the future and for the way in which the sector is perceived. Strong, national and Community incentives must therefore be put in place. I also support the idea of adjusting the rules of the FIFG and, I would add, those of the EAGGF in order to fund subsidies for setting young people up in business, transferring businesses and providing consumers with information.
I share the rapporteur’s concern about the risk posed by genetically modified fish, and it is very clear that there must be a total ban in the European Union on both the production and import of such fish. Finally, there is a need to be very vigilant concerning the unfair competition practised by a number of third countries, since dumping is absolutely to be prohibited in an emerging and volatile market. The import of aquaculture products that does not respect the standards imposed upon European Union producers must be absolutely forbidden, and this ban must be duly monitored."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples