Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am not croaky, I am glad to say, but my voice does quaver a little when I speak of the Mediterranean, which beckons us towards the sun, beaches, and holidays. The climatic, physical, cultural and political history of the Mediterranean is very rich and complex. I read recently that it dried up completely five thousand years ago, as demonstrated by the layers of salt on the sea floor. Admittedly, the pressures of tourism, the population explosion in northern Africa and pollution do not currently threaten this beautiful sea as gravely as did that climatic disaster which dried it up completely. There is nevertheless a risk of overfishing in many parts of the Mediterranean. The most rigorous scientific research says as much, though there is as yet no scientifically proven risk of a collapse in fish stocks. While there is admittedly no risk of collapse, then, there are threats nevertheless, and it is to be feared that resources in the Mediterranean may suffer the same decline as has occurred in other maritime regions. That is why it is necessary to take action. There is no doubt that delegating power and responsibility to Member States, as well as teasing out solutions at local level in order to reduce the fishing effort, is to be welcomed. It is a good principle, one which could eventually be applied at points on the Atlantic rim, such as the coast of Portugal, for example. The obstacles placed by the rapporteur in the way of implementing the main tools of conservation policy, however, especially total allowable catches (TAC) and quotas, raise some doubts in my mind. The objections brought by the rapporteur to the introduction of minimum landing sizes are also debateable. The reference to the special character of Mediterranean fisheries is legitimate, but seems almost to have become for some a pretext for maintaining the current status quo. Research is the magic word, but it is also used to defer decisions that demand to be taken straight away. In point of fact, though, research must indeed be a priority for the European Union, and organisations under its umbrella, if errors are not to be made in future regarding the state of fisheries resources and marine biodiversity. A more balanced and rational study of salt-water fisheries resources in the Mediterranean is needed. That much is indisputable. At this point, however, after hearing the speeches made by my fellow Members, I continue to entertain doubts about whether we should apply the current Atlantic common fisheries policy (CFP) to the Mediterranean, or whether we should, on the contrary, apply the Mediterranean model to the Atlantic ... This is a highly controversial issue which we should perhaps examine in depth rather than superficially, since what has finally come to light today, after the speeches we have heard, is that the current CFP model is misguided, and the existing Mediterranean model is the one which may eventually come to be adopted. Is this claim true or false? It certainly constitutes a challenge. As the Commission says, the one thing of which we can now be certain is that the Mediterranean lacks regulations allowing the same levels of development to be achieved, and attaching the same high priority to this issue, as in other parts of the Community. It is not even true to say that a few specific elements are necessary. Who is right? This answer to this question is very important if we are to resolve doubts over whether some of the speeches made on the subject of the Mediterranean are not designed purely and simply to maintain the status quo.

Political group: PSE