Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-17-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100617.4.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Milana, aquaculture indisputably constitutes an area of activity with strong potential for contributing to the economic and social development of innumerable regions, especially coastal and rural ones, and for promoting local production and employment. It also encourages other connected activities and so contributes to reducing dependency and to giving various countries and regions more balanced diets. It must be seen as an important complement to the fishing sector, not as an alternative to it.
Aquaculture must therefore be deserving of attention and support from the EU. Enough financial resources must be dedicated to this activity to promote it and the social benefits generated by it, specifically by supporting the sector’s small and medium-sized businesses. Nevertheless, we must be careful: since it is an important complement and not an alternative, financial support for aquaculture must not come at the expense of reducing the funds awarded to other sectors, not least those given to fishing by the European Fisheries Fund.
We must also not forget that this activity has a significant environmental impact, which has already been mentioned here. For each case, this impact must be carefully assessed, weighed up and, where applicable, mitigated.
Priority must be given to means of production that are environmentally more sustainable, such as organic aquaculture. There is also a need for determined, strong and persistent support for any research and development in the sector that promotes its environmental and economic sustainability and viability. New techniques and methodologies are needed that make it possible to cultivate indigenous species instead of exotic ones, thus diversifying production and reducing risks, as well as to fight diseases and promote the health and welfare of both the cultivated species and consumers.
To this end, amongst other possible instruments, it would be important to reorient the priorities of the Framework Programme for Research, so as to enable adequate coverage of this area of research.
I must mention two further issues: certification and quality labels. The procedures are frequently complex, drawn-out and, above all, expensive. If the reason that certification exists is to protect the interests of producers and consumers, then in order to be an effective guarantee of transparency, quality and safety for consumers it must be carried out by public bodies, so as to avoid the profusion of labels and certifications along with the confusion that is inherent to it. Moreover, it must not represent increased costs for producers.
As regards imported products, international trade must be based on the complementarity of the products bought and sold, and not on competition between production units and producers. The need for imported products to comply with basic public-health and food-safety standards must be kept in mind. All this requires the regulation of trade and a halt to the complete liberalisation and deregulation that we have been witnessing."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples