Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, everyone will understand if, at the beginning of this debate, I express my feelings of sorrow, deep compassion and solidarity to the fishermen and fish farmers of the Atlantic coast, with whom I deal on a daily basis. The omens at the start of 2003 are very sad. I want to talk again for a moment about the growing importance of the aquaculture sector. In the course of the last ten years, in fact, aquaculture has seen spectacular growth throughout the world, as well as in the European Community, and has become a high–growth sector in world food production. In the EU, aquaculture accounts for almost 30% of the total value of fisheries production, almost EUR three billion per year and 60 000 jobs. It has many advantages, but I prefer to focus upon the three most important of these: the fact that it contributes significantly to the fish supply without increasing the pressure on stocks in the marine environment; that it is a source of jobs in regions with little alternative employment; and, finally, the fact that it will be able, I am convinced, to help maintain natural resources once wild species are being conserved. The report that has been entrusted to me and that I have the honour to present today before this Assembly is focused upon what seems to me to be the most important aspect of aquaculture: sustainable development. Certain fish–farming activities are indeed very often seen as polluting or are thought to harm the environment. That is less and less the case, since professional fish farmers respect what are sometimes draconian European rules. On the contrary, this sector is particularly, and unfortunately too often, affected directly by external pollution: nitrates in fresh water, waste discharged from ships’ tanks, hydrocarbons, chemical products and toxic algae in seawater. Fish farmers are, then, too often the powerless victims of tragedies such as that involving the Prestige. That is why I have focused my report on four key aspects of sustainable development: those relating to the environment, the social sphere, the economy and governance. I shall not go into any more detail on these topics, with which everyone is very familiar. Instead, I should like to emphasise one fundamental aspect of aquaculture, that of research, which should specifically enable us not only to achieve indisputable product quality for consumers, to put new products on the market and to discover innovative forms of aquaculture such as off–shore sites, but also – and why not? – to do as I have proposed and to conserve and develop wild species, particularly of fish, with a view to restocking of a kind that, in a number of cases, would enable the resource to be maintained. Is this utopian thinking? We shall see. Nor shall I go into more detail about my report which, I am very happy to say, has been unanimously adopted by the Committee on Fisheries. I prefer to take this opportunity to express once again my compassion for the fish farmers and fishermen who have been affected on such a long–term basis by the loss of the Prestige, which shows just how vulnerable they are. They are not polluters. Rather, they are the victims of pollution. This disaster, which began by polluting the Galician coast, has also affected the French Atlantic coast, including that Mecca of oyster farming, the Arcachon basin. Behind the aquaculture sites, there are people: people who have worked ceaselessly to ensure the quality of their products and who are in danger of seeing all their efforts, indeed their very lives, reduced to nothing. In this way, the Prestige disaster has, for an unspecified period, exposed every member of the profession, including their families, to suffering that is both psychological and economic. It is intolerable that oyster farmers should once again be victims of inadequate maritime safety and of the dumping of hydrocarbons onto our coasts. In this connection, I should like to congratulate the Commission which, at the time, proposed an initial set of vital measures under the headings of the Erika 1 and Erika 2 packages, and say how sorry I am – and I am talking directly to the Presidency here – that a number of these measures have been deferred and others not taken into account. This has been due to pressure exercised by a small number of Member States that are better at depending upon payments than at devoting their attention to what is essential: the survival of the planet. What can be done in the short term? Certainly, there are already existing resources within the framework of the FIFG programmes, and a whole range of measures can be implemented. The Commissioner has replied to me on this subject. Finally, I would emphasise the importance of combating flags of convenience, as well as the need to establish a European Corps of Coastguards. Even though it would be difficult to establish such a corps in the short term, its benefits would include improving the effectiveness of border controls and strengthening maritime safety. Indeed, I remain conscious of the fact that, setting aside the Prestige disaster, maritime hooligans pollute our seas on a daily basis by a criminal act for which the penalties are not sufficiently severe: that of discharging waste into the sea. I urge the Greek Presidency to put maritime safety and the measures to be taken in the event of disaster at the top of its agenda. This report will be adopted in very sad circumstances. For all that, let us look steadfastly towards this sector of the future. It is important for the Commission to implement the recommendations in my report, particularly in relation to research and innovation. Consumers and the industry as a whole stand to benefit.

Political group: PPE-DE