Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2006/2110(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0266/2006

Texts tabled :

A6-0266/2006

Debates :

PV 27/09/2006 - 13
CRE 27/09/2006 - 13

Votes :

PV 28/09/2006 - 7.9
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2006)0390

Verbatim report of proceedings
Wednesday, 27 September 2006 - Strasbourg OJ edition

13. Improving the economic situation in the fishing industry (debate)
PV
MPphoto
 
 

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0266/2006) by Mr Guerreiro, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry (2006/2110(INI)).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, I should first like to thank all the members of the Committee on Fisheries who made this report on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry possible. The report was adopted unanimously. I also wish to thank all of the organisations in the sector, who, by staunchly protecting fisheries and the workers in the sector, have helped the report to include a range of proposals that we feel address the serious social and economic crisis facing the sector.

We hope that Parliament will support that result in tomorrow’s vote. Just a few days ago, at a meeting with a delegation from the Committee on Fisheries in the Algarve, representatives from the sector gave a description of the situation, which can be summed up as follows: the fishing industry is facing a serious economic and social crisis that has been getting worse over the years. This difficult situation has been exacerbated by rising production costs, in particular the cost of fuel, along with the stagnation of first-sale prices, all of which threatens the financial viability of many firms and has had a terrible impact on crews, whose wages depend on income from catches and, to a large extent, on the cost of fuel.

The common fisheries policy has fallen short, by promoting the regular, significant scrapping of vessels, resulting in thousands of fishermen leaving a sector that is of strategic importance to some Member States. What is needed is to reverse the common fisheries policy pursued to date, in that it should acknowledge the particular characteristics of each country’s fishing industry and the right to fish sustainably while allowing fish stocks to recover. The policy should be aimed at feeding the people, full employment, improving the social conditions of the workers, and ensuring the sustainability of companies.

The sector will move forward if practical measures are put in place: emergency measures to address the sharp rises in fuel prices, such as the creation of the guarantee fund, direct temporary support to offset the cost of diesel fuel and petrol, and an increase in aid under the de minimis rule.

There should also be a range of measures to guarantee the income of those working in the sector, for example in the setting of first-sale prices, which entails a review of the current rules of the common organisation of the market in fishery products. Studies should be carried out aimed at identifying measures to increase the value of fish, with a view to channelling the added value into the manufacturing sector without the consumer being penalised. Support should be provided for modernising and renewing national fishing fleets, which would mean a definitive end to the policy of the indiscriminate scrapping of vessels. There also needs to be a targeted support programme for traditional, small-scale inshore fishing. These were the measures proposed by the sector at its meeting with Parliament.

Although it has described the situation in the industry as serious, the Commission has proposed measures that fall well short of addressing it. The difficulties currently facing the fishing sector are rooted mainly in the problem of the cost structure, as costs are high in relation to the income obtained. These costs have suddenly been exacerbated by the steep rise in the cost of fuel, which is why the proposed solution of reducing fishing effort and adapting – in other words, cutting – the fleet will not solve the problem. What is needed is to improve the economic situation in the sector, which above all means addressing the problem of the balance between falling incomes and rising operational costs in the sector.

Similarly, given that successive restrictions on fishing have served to worsen the economic situation in the sector, albeit this is not the only factor, it is difficult to understand why they would be even considered, let alone accepted, as measures to improve the economic situation in the sector. As the sector itself has highlighted, extraordinary situations demand extraordinary measures, and that means exhausting all possibilities and stretching the financial limits of the Community budget this year, not least because what is at stake is a common Community policy, the common fisheries policy, which, to be consistent, should be responsible for funding its own costs, within the framework of the European Fisheries Fund.

I shall finish by stating once again that the fisheries sector has potential and a future and it should not be pitted against aquaculture. New priorities demand more resources and new resources.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Guerreiro, for his report, and the Fisheries Committee for having taken up this important subject in the form of an own-initiative report. It brings a significant contribution to the ongoing debate on the economic situation of the European Union fishing sector.

I also noted with satisfaction that the Conference of Committee Chairmen expressed its appreciation of the Commission’s communication on the economic difficulties of the sector. The Conference of Committee Chairmen welcomed the positions expressed by the Commission in its communication, in which it envisages a number of possibilities for aiding the sector in the short term, in the existing context of Community legislation on State aids; in particular, our willingness to examine the national rescue and restructuring aid schemes, submitted by Member States in the two years following publication of the communication. I shall therefore also touch upon some of the recommendations of the Conference of Committee Chairmen, which converge largely with those of the report we are discussing.

We share the same concerns and objectives regarding the fishing sector. We agree with many of the proposals and assessments contained in your report, although we have different views and perspectives on some others regarding, for instance, the short-term support to be given to the sector.

Let me state from the beginning that I strongly disagree with the statement that the Commission appears to take advantage of the current economic crisis to reduce the size of the fishing fleet. By calling a spade a spade, by highlighting the state that the Community fishery is in because of years of over-fishing, we are not taking advantage of anything. I also find unfair the suggestion that we have done too little, too late.

The imbalance between fleet capacity and available resources and the oil price increase are objective causes of the current difficulties faced by the sector. The Commission has done everything possible to help the sector, taking into account the parameters of Community legislation and the need to ensure that the aid actually contributes to fishing sustainability.

No mandatory capacity reductions are foreseen under Community law. Indeed, our challenge has been to balance the necessity to help the segments most affected by high oil prices with the need to address long-term structural problems. We have, therefore, sought to design instruments to rescue and restructure fishing enterprises in difficulty, to help them adapt and become profitable within the context of high oil prices.

It is no use giving aid to fishing enterprises in difficulty if they do not, or cannot, undertake the restructuring that will make them profitable again. For that reason, we have excluded from the rescue schemes all forms of operating aid, which apart from going against Community legislation, will only prolong the problem without solving it.

Action can be taken in the short term by Member States willing to provide support for financial and physical restructuring of fishing enterprises in difficulty, in the framework of national rescue and restructuring schemes. That is precisely meant to allow fishing enterprises in difficulty to obtain loan capital and bail them out, as requested both in your report and in that of the Conference of Committee Chairmen on the work programme of the Commission.

The Community is strongly committed to these rescue and restructuring schemes, since Community funds will be available mainly through the European Fisheries Fund, to cofinance the restructuring of fishing enterprises, as well as to alleviate their social consequences. Socio-economic support can indeed be provided through the EFF, as requested in your report. The new EFF will also provide for more advantageous conditions for scrapping vessels, which was a concern expressed both in your report and that of the Conference of Committee Chairmen.

Besides EFF support, we have worked hard to establish new rules for de minimis aid, in collaboration with the Commission’s other services, in order to facilitate the handling of small State aid schemes by Member States. This goes in the direction of your request, which point was also made by the Conference of Committee Chairmen. You must appreciate that our proposal already represents a tenfold increase on the former threshold, which was fixed less than two years ago.

We have also noted the request for a specific treatment of the long-distance fleet, expressed both in your report and that of the Committee Chairmen. We are prepared to consider if, and under what conditions, a special register for this segment of the fleet would be justified.

Beyond the rescue and restructuring of fishing firms in difficulty, we must create in the long term an environment that is conducive to their sustainable success. The communication therefore highlights some policy areas that I want to develop in the coming years to create this more favourable environment. I am not going to repeat them here, but I would like to highlight some areas where our views converge.

We fully agree on the need to better involve fishermen in the management of fisheries. That is crucial for the success of the reformed common fisheries policy and I am determined to move in that direction. Due attention will also be paid to the financing of regional advisory councils’ operation.

In line with your recommendations, we have taken serious steps to strengthen the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) at international level. Our 2002 action plan is being updated and a new piece of legislation is being considered. That has been given high priority in our agenda. We share the view that small-scale coastal fishing has specificities that deserve to be taken into account. We have done it extensively, both in the rescue and restructuring schemes and in the EFF. We have launched a study to assess objectively whether more can be done. We also agree with you that special attention needs to be paid to marketing, with a view to increasing the added value of fishing products for fishermen.

As mentioned also by the Conference of Committee Chairmen, research should also be pursued in the Seventh Framework Programme to help address some of the most important challenges of the sector.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you once again for your contributions and interest. They demonstrate how much we all strive to ensure a sustainable and healthy future for the fishing sector. I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion with you.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group.(PL) Madam President, our rapporteur set himself a very difficult task. Efforts to regulate the situation of specific professional groups carry with them a considerable temptation to heighten social sensitivity, which then often turns into hypersensitivity when short-term political needs accumulate.

Our rapporteur hails from the Left of the Chamber and chose his own ‘third way’, deeming the economic situation of the fishing sector to be an extraordinary problem, requiring the Commission to take extraordinary measures. The essence of Mr Guerreiro’s stance is illustrated by amendments such as Amendment 23, which describes the social impact of economic solutions. In these amendments, the Commission is strongly urged to create new instruments for creating economic programmes that will guarantee the growth of funding in particular.

More moderate opinions are reflected in the amendments relating to long-term maritime policy such as Amendments 3 and 5. They do not play down the need to keep a iunctim between a sustainable income and the taxation of fisheries and a specific form and level of social aid. This principle should be applied not only to long-term activities leading to the sustainable development of fisheries, but also short-term actions such as the replacement of engines and fishing equipment.

Mr Guerreiro’s report is important to the Community fisheries policy and was also the subject of detailed scrutiny in the Committee on Fisheries. The final version represents the result of multilateral negotiations and a determined effort to arrive at a version with which Members could be satisfied. It received the unanimous support of our committee.

The European Parliament should support this document in the conviction that two fundamental issues for European fisheries are to be covered by the regulatory process for European fisheries, namely a broadly-focused economic strategy and everyday matters that are closer to the hearts of those in the sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Casaca, on behalf of the PSE Group.(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, the fishing industry uses a great deal of energy, and as such it has been especially badly hit by the rise in fuel prices, a problem that has worsened an already precarious economic situation. A challenge such as that faced by this sector requires solutions that, in trying to improve the situation, do not make matters worse. I refer to responses such as across-the-board regulations that are cannot be properly monitored or that are ill-matched to the specific conditions of the sector that they are regulating. Rather, what are needed are regulations that take account of particular situations in all their complexity.

It is generally held that the best way forward is to reduce fishing effort, to use more selective methods, and to introduce positive discrimination in favour of local, small-scale fishing, which is the best way of keeping fish fresh. In the case in question, however, these general objectives may have to be achieved by means of an increase in the engine capacity and the size of the vessels, which will afford more comfort and safety at work, and by means of investment in diversification into activities such as tourism.

An overly detailed, centralised legislative fabric, far removed from its practical implementation and its actual impact on the situations it is designed to regulate, leads to a proliferation of illegal, unreported and unregulated catches within and outside the Community area. This in turn widens the gap between the imagined world of the legislation and the real world of the European fish market.

The common fisheries policy needs to be thoroughly decentralised and local fishermen, their representative bodies and the fishing communities must be much more involved in this policy and in improving fisheries management. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s manual on preserving the quality of fish, the key principle of a sustainable fisheries policy is to prevent the tragedy of the commons; in other words, if something has no known owner, be it buffalo or fish, everyone will rush to exploit it and will eventually destroy it.

Consequently, it is only by extending responsibility to fishermen and involving them directly that we can think of improving their economic situation on a sustainable basis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Arūnas Degutis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) I agree with the rapporteur’s idea that in regard to improving the economic condition of the fishery sector we need to table the proposals for the attainment of objectives both in the immediate future and in the follow-up monitoring of the measures aimed at triggering material changes in the medium- and long-term. Since the sector is especially sensitive to the impact of natural conditions, we must develop a system of compensation for losses incurred due to factors beyond our control. It is necessary to develop a national and Community-level state insurance system that would help the fishery sector survive in the face of natural crises. Similar measures have already been put in place in other sectors.

I would like to say that I fully support the short-time measures proposed by the rapporteur. As for long-time measures, sufficient investment in the framework fisheries research program is of paramount importance, especially with a view to enhancing energy efficiency. The European Fisheries Fund should continue aiding the upgrading and modernisation of the European Fleet. In this respect I would like to draw your attention to the need to thoroughly consider the proposals included in the previous resolutions of the European Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ian Hudghton, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. Madam President, fishing-dependent communities in Scotland have suffered a drastic downturn in their economic wellbeing in recent years, directly as a result of political decisions made under the common fisheries policy – decisions made with the active cooperation of the Scottish and the UK Governments.

Large numbers of vessels have been forcibly scrapped, the remainder are forcibly restricted to ports for half of each month; and, on top of all that, fuel prices have drastically increased. The effect on fishing communities, on the families who depend upon the catching and processing sectors, has been very serious and very stressful.

Regrettably, Scotland’s coastal communities continue to suffer while its own Government repeatedly declines to make use of available opportunities to make financial assistance available.

Our rapporteur takes the view that greater decentralisation of the CFP would be an improvement, and I agree that would be a step in the right direction. However, ultimately, I regret to say that the CFP is destined to fail; and the scrapping of the CFP, coupled with a change in government in Scotland, is the only hope for fishing communities in the long-term future in Scotland.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacky Henin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, allow me to congratulate my colleague, Mr Guerreiro, on his report, which is remarkable and very thorough.

Let us be clear. Fishing in general, and small-scale fishing in particular, are, in Europe, in danger of dying out. If nothing is done, there will no longer be any small-scale fishermen in 15 years’ time within the territory of the European Union. If there are no longer any small-scale fishermen, then all of the tourist and economic activity from sales by auction and specialist catering will also disappear. Without the presence of those who are, first and foremost, sea lovers, the odds are that the Member States’ territorial waters will be abandoned, in that case, to the atrocities of the hooligans of the sea, who fear neither God nor man.

How can one fail to understand the desire of some people to see fishing disappear when it is clear that the disappearance of certain fishing ports could offer new prospects of developing the pleasure-boat market, something that would not leave the particularly influential economic and financial interests indifferent?

In order to support my argument and to prove that the aim is indeed one of putting paid to fishing, I invite you to refer to the scandalous and criminal decision taken by the Commission, which, on the pretext of a distortion of competition and at the very time when the price of diesel fuel has not stopped rising, has put an end, in France, to the fund for the prevention of risks to fishing, with the result that the entire profession has been put in a very difficult position. As the report recommends, this fund for the prevention of risks to fishing should have been extended to the entire Union, not banned by the Commission.

It also seems necessary to me to demand central buying offices for supermarkets, with the prices taking account of the real costs incurred by small-scale fishermen.

To conclude, I believe that, if we are to reverse the trend and save European fishing, it is important for us to adopt this report and, above all, for the Commission very swiftly to implement the proposals it contains.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. Madam President, I welcome this motion for a resolution, which highlights the detrimental effect that high fuel prices are having on the fishing industry, resulting in job losses and severe problems in fishing communities. I agree with the proposal that a guarantee fund should be set up to ensure the stability of fuel prices in a level playing field for the Community.

I agree that the Commission paper of last spring is insufficient, particularly in relation to short-term aid. That temporary tie-up funding is part of a rescue and restructuring package severely curtails its usefulness as a support measure; and that the de minimis aid ceiling has only increased to EUR 30 000 over 3 years is also very restrictive and inequitable in relation to other sectors.

The fishing industry is in crisis and the Commission paper has not helped. It remains to be seen whether its medium- and long-term measures will be any better. I support recommendations that a review of the common organisation of the markets would provide for greater assistance to fishermen and their organisations to become more involved in the marketing and production of fish. I also agree that fish imports from outside the EU should be subject to the same conditions and should at least be legal. I agree that the EFF reduced funding is insufficient. This will be a problem for the restructuring of fishing fleets by implementing decommissioning schemes.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Madam Chairman, I share the disappointment expressed in this report at the inadequacy of the Commission’s response to the crisis in the fishing industry, but I will not pretend to be surprised. For the Commission, socio-economic pressures are, I fear, something to be exploited rather than alleviated, because fundamentally, in pursuit of the common fisheries policy the Commission desires savage reduction in fishing effort. Mr Commissioner, deny it as you will, but is that not the truth of the matter that these socio-economic pressures help you attain that goal?

There can be no doubting the depth of the crisis, with, across the EU, a 35% fall in jobs in ten years, falling prices, falling catches, a 40% dependence on imports, and a 100% hike in fuel prices in the last two years. There is no doubt about any of that, but there is much room to doubt the worth of the Commission’s response. Such permitted assistance as there is in that response, is for many regions, particularly in the United Kingdom, likely to be more theoretical than real because of national governments’ resistance to match funding or any form of state aid.

Here, Commissioner, we come to a matter I would like you to focus on: a glaring flaw in the common fisheries policy. How can you deliver a common fisheries policy if some governments avail of options and some do not? Oh yes, we all get to share the downside of binding CFP regulations and quotas and restrictions, but not all get to share the upside which flows from permitted assistance. The result is a fisheries policy of disparity, not of commonality; and until the Commission and this House find a way to address that issue, even its modest proposals here will accentuate the difference between the haves and the have-nots under the common fisheries policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for being here. Like all of my fellow Members, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on this timely report, since, as previous speakers have said, there is no denying the serious economic situation being experienced by the fisheries sector, which has mainly been damaged over the last two years by the rising prices of fuel.

Precisely when we need to tackle this situation, however, the lack of commitment and support contained in the Commission’s Communication is regrettable, since it only provides for measures offering a long-term solution and, even then, they are the most painful solutions for the sector, such as restructuring of the fleet.

Given the current situation, however, we also need short-term solutions, and the Commission has ignored these completely. Not only is the minimal aid announced ridiculous compared to that offered to other production sectors, but also the Commission is still failing to fulfil its promise to publish the regulation authorising it and which we have been waiting for for more than two years. This is inexplicable given that, furthermore, this type of aid is exclusively national and does not therefore imply any additional cost to the Union’s budget.

As Mr Guerreiro has said, we have just returned from a visit to the Algarve and, a few months before that, we were in Greece. We are all aware of the fisheries situation in our own countries, and I therefore believe that this document offers the minimum support we politicians must provide for the fisheries sector at this time. I too would therefore urge that it be approved tomorrow in plenary.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE).(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the exceptional work in his report.

As you know, the fishing industry makes an important contribution to the prosperity and to the economic and social fabric of coastal and island areas and to the maintenance of their cohesion. It also makes a contribution to the supply of fisheries products with a high organic value, to the employment of a large number of workers in related industries and to the maintenance of local cultural traditions.

I think that it would be a good idea to create a Community support programme for coastal and small-scale fisheries using traditional methods, especially in my country, Greece, where it is the basic source of income for thousands of families in island and remote areas. There should also be direct Community aid due to the increase in fuel costs.

To close, I agree with the rapporteur that the eco-labelling could significantly promote product differentiation and provide a fundamental incentive for a sustainable fishing trade.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vincenzo Aita (GUE/NGL).(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the points made in Mr Guerreiro's report have the merit of being a positive response to the demands made in recent years by fishing operators, and therefore they should clearly be taken on board in the Commission’s decision.

The report comes out strongly in defence of employment levels in this sector, which comprises 90 000 vessels and employs some 190 000 workers in Europe. Previous fisheries directives led to considerable job losses, with the result that Europe now imports 40% of its needs. Over the last 10 years, 35% of jobs and 20% of vessels have been lost, in an industry concentrated above all in regions with a weak and particularly fragile economy.

One of the most important points in the report that I should like to highlight is its appeal to the Commission to guarantee and support the operation and adoption of measures to remedy the high instability of fuel prices, both by creating a guarantee fund for the sector with Community participation, and by implementing the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance in order to reduce operating costs to a minimum.

The period for rescue aid must be extended to 12 months, and the ceiling raised from EUR 30 000 to EUR 100 000. The European Fisheries Fund must continue to grant aid for the renewal and modernisation of the fleet, in particular to allow the replacement of engines, so as to guarantee crew safety and environmental protection. The role of research in this area must not be forgotten either. Research needs to be performed and developed to enhance energy efficiency, reduce costs and ensure protection for fish stocks and fishing systems.

If we just bear those points in mind, we can help those parts of the weakest regions in the European economic system that have close links with fishing to protect their jobs and to continue supplying Europe’s consumers.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ioannis Gklavakis (PPE-DE).(EL) Madam President, congratulations to the rapporteur on his report.

The fishing industry is in a bad way and is shrinking constantly. It is estimated that over the last 10 years the number of fishermen has fallen by 4 to 5% per annum, the number of vessels has fallen by 20% and the quantities landed have fallen by 28%; the only thing that has increased has been the cost of fishing. For example, fuel costs have risen by 100%, while fishermen's incomes have fallen by 25% since 2004.

Support measures need to be taken. I am delighted that the Commission has been the first to establish the need to take support measures. I am less than delighted that the measures provided for are inadequate. We need to make use of every possibility for granting aid from the Community budget for the remainder of the 2006 financial year. We need tax relief, because otherwise fishing undertakings will not be able to compete with undertakings from third countries, as they have triple the operating costs. We need to increase compensation and we need to increase the period of support to 12 months. We need – as we all acknowledge – to have measures to protect the seas, but we also need to support Community fishermen who, in the last analysis, are the only ones fishing under environmental protection rules.

In the long term, the replacement of engines without reducing their power must be supported. The sea conceals many dangers. We do not want our fishermen to drown; that is why they must have new, safe engines for their protection.

Coastal fishing must be supported due to its important social role. We need to take measures to combat pollution of the seas and measures to combat illegal fishing, so as to protect fish stocks.

Finally, the fishing industry must be saved, because fishermen are an important part of tradition, civilisation and European culture. In addition, may I remind you, they provide consumers with healthy food.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, in general terms, we take a positive view of this Commission Communication, since we believe that it responds to the sector’s demands in that it seeks solutions to ensure the viability and sustainability of the fisheries sector and to guarantee that it has a viable future. We also welcome the immense work of the rapporteur, Mr Guerreiro.

We would also say to the Commission that we believe it to be necessary to improve and extend some of the measures contained in that Communication, such as those relating to improving marketing and those relating to research into the development of more efficient energy use. We also need more ambition when it comes to promoting innovative actions to increase the presence of fishermen in the commercial chain and improve their living and working conditions, as well as their level of training. I am therefore in favour of the Commission’s proposal to carry out a review of the current COM. Improving the marketing of fish and fisheries products would increase their added value, Commissioner.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE).(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the Commission communication on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry, which, in itself, is indicative of the fact that something must be done to help the sector, with the emphasis on the weakest areas of the common fisheries policy (CFP).

The purpose of the CFP is to guarantee and preserve the balance between the economic and social development of fishing communities and the sustainable management of fishing resources. It should be noted that, with respect to both aspects of this common policy, the fishermen and their communities are often in a situation that is as vulnerable as, or more vulnerable than, the situation in which many of the threatened species find themselves. I am not suggesting that we need to jettison the sustainability of resources in favour of the sector’s economic viability, because that would lead to the collapse of environmental sustainability and of these fishermen’s future.

The Commission communication makes its diagnosis, yet fails to provide the solutions that the sector needs and that are largely mentioned in the report by Mr Guerreiro, whom I take this opportunity to congratulate. The consequence of the balance between the two strands of the CFP is that we must invest in promoting more selective methods, in small-scale fishing, in aquaculture, in scientific research and in socio-economic aid. This aid must compensate for the permanent loss of income arising from the disappearance of jobs, and for the reduction in income resulting from recovery plans and from far-reaching changes in cost-effectiveness due to external circumstances. That is precisely the case of the current difficulties arising from the rise in fuel prices. The Commission must do more in this area. Similarly, some Member States should make better use of existing opportunities. Thought must also be given to the process of setting the price of fish. It is unacceptable that fishermen should simply take what they are given as regards price-setting, when the price to the consumer is sometimes double that of the first-sale price.

Thought must be given, moreover, to support for producer organisations, albeit within existing legislative frameworks, in order to ensure greater fairness and to protect those who sustain the sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (PSE).(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, we all agree on the economic and social importance of the fisheries sector in the EU and on the Commission’s diagnosis that the situation is critical. Similarly, no one doubts Mr Borg’s sensitivity to the problem or his desire to minimise the impact within the limits of currently available resources. The responses put forward by the Commission, however, fall well short of what was needed and the sector considers them disappointing. This is particularly true of small-scale coastal fishing, which is the most socially vulnerable part of the industry. If there had been any doubts, they would have been completely dispelled by the missions undertaken this year by the Committee on Fisheries in Greece, Italy, France and, in recent days, Portugal.

The Commission communication and the report before us – and I take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur – are right to warn of an unsustainable situation that must not be allowed to go on. We cannot have a common policy that imposes Community-level restrictions and then leaves it to the Member States to cherry-pick the problems they solve depending on the funds they have available.

The Community must respond quickly to the problems of fuel prices, which several previous speakers have mentioned, the stagnation of the price of fish, and the renewal of the fleet without increasing capacity. I therefore hope that Parliament adopts the report and that the Commission ensures that it is put into practice.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, fishing is an important part of the Union’s economy, yet it has been in crisis for many years. There is an imbalance between excessively large catches and the resources available. Greater exploitation of the fishing grounds has contributed to the problem of overfishing, which is now common and occurs in most waters. The increased cost of fuel leads to higher operating costs. We should remember that many economically weak regions are dependent on the fisheries sector. On the one hand, we have environmentalists and the views expressed by many scientists, drawing our attention to the disastrous situation of the resources in our seas and oceans, and on the other hand we have to think about the fisheries, the fishermen and their families. We need to find a golden mean, so that we can have our cake and eat it.

Both short and long-term measures are called for if we are to overcome the difficulties afflicting this sector. These measures include fishing quotas, restrictions on fishing time, a wide range of subsidies and other forms of assistance. Difficult changes and adjustments must therefore be devised. Intervention by the European Union is required if we are to tread the straight and narrow path of sustainable development. Scientists, civil servants and fishermen must all unite in order to overcome the difficulties in this sector. It was unfortunate that at its December Summit the European Council cut funding for the European Fisheries Fund from around EUR 4.9 billion to EUR 3.8 billion for the period 2007-2013. The Union’s fishing industry really needs these financial resources.

Fisheries could be viewed as maritime versions of farms. They do more than simply supply consumers with healthy food and represent more than a source of income for people living in coastal areas. They are also part of a rich culture and heritage. Much like farming, fishing is dependent on nature. It is therefore necessary to understand the specific nature of fishing and consider the ecosystem as a whole. Only then will we be able to pull the fishing sector out of its state of crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking Members for the various points they have raised. I will try to respond to some of them.

Firstly, with regard to the need for a guarantee fund, the basic problem with guarantee funding is that it can amount to operating aid, which is not permissible under competition rules. We are looking further into this and welcome any proposals from Member States on how such funds may be operated in accordance with competition rules. The Commission could approve such schemes at national level if they guaranteed reimbursement of all public aid under commercial conditions.

As regards the long-term aim to help the industry adapt to high fuel prices, the Commission places a high priority on research and development for more fuel-efficient and more environmentally friendly fishing techniques. Significant funds are being provided to support such work under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. Renewable energy, in particular biofuels, represents one such measure.

Research on the design of new, more selective or more fuel-efficient fishing gear is encouraged and can be funded under the framework programme, with initial acquisition of such equipment also financeable under the European Fisheries Fund.

The European Fisheries Fund, agreed to last June, provides for engine renewals and, in this regard, small-scale vessels are treated more favourably. In fact, regarding small-scale coastal fisheries, we have catered for specificities in the rescue and restructuring scheme and in the European Fisheries Fund. One example is the acquisition of new engines or engine renewal. We are studying what else can be done in order to help small-scale coastal fisheries.

Regarding the comment by Mr Allister and others that the Commission is taking advantage of the increase in fuel prices to reduce the fleet, let me repeat the facts as I know them. There have been years on end of over-fishing and this has caused falling catches. This means a vast over-capacity today: we have vessels with a capacity vastly exceeding what can sustainably be caught. Those are the facts. The vast majority of stocks are being fished in a completely unsustainable manner.

Acknowledging this will help us find solutions for the long-term benefit of future fishermen. If we continue to bury our heads in the sand, we will only prolong the agony before fisheries die a natural death through continued over-fishing.

We agree that special attention needs to be paid to marketing with a view to increasing the added value of fishery products for fishermen. We are actively looking at this and the renewal of the common organisation of the market should answer the sector’s concerns in this area, in particular by helping the sector to improve first-sale prices.

The de minimis ceiling of 30 000 proposed by the Commission is a balanced and reasonable compromise. The Commission has proposed raising the ceiling from the previous amount of 3000 to 30 000. The review of this threshold has been carried out in the light of the specific characteristics of fishing enterprises, independently of the sector’s current difficulties.

It was commented that the Commission was proposing too little too late. I acknowledge that the communication was issued later than desired, but one has to appreciate the complexity of the situation we are dealing with and the constraints of Community legislation, in particular regarding competition rules. This is why it was important to describe carefully the rules and conditions necessary for designing rescue and restructuring schemes.

Many fishing enterprises will benefit from the measures proposed if Member States take up the challenge and prepare the necessary framework swiftly. These measures are substantial: financial restructuring, renewal of engines and of fishing gear and aid to temporary cessation. According to the guidelines, state aid for the rescue and restructuring of SMEs in the area of fisheries can cover up to 75% of the total cost of a rescue and restructuring plan.

May I suggest that we work together and do our utmost to make the best use of these possibilities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iles Braghetto (PPE-DE).(IT) We are all aware of the difficult situation in which the fishing industry finds itself, in view of the ongoing and, in some cases, serious depletion of fish stocks, the cuts imposed on fishing activities and the rising costs of certain production factors.

The industry plays a major role in our development economy, in the sustainable management of marine resources and in the achievement of full employment in coastal communities. In order to support and promote the sector, it is essential, in our view, to invest in modernising the fleet, training fishery workers and improving the living and working conditions of seafarers. We cannot just push for a restructuring of the sector without taking into account the damaging effects on full employment: the measures called for by the Commission are reasonable but insufficient. In short, I fully support the report’s specific and detailed proposals.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). – (SV) Mr Guerreiro’s report on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry worries me a lot. The way in which the Community’s fishing fleet conducts its activities will lead to the oceans becoming irrevocably depleted of fish, and all to protect an industry that is uncompetitive internationally.

Allow me to give an example. At the beginning of September, the Commission presented a proposal on fishing in the Baltic Sea. The ICES, or International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, again repeated the demand for a total ban on cod fishing in the eastern Baltic, but the Commission believes that it is enough for it to be reduced by 15%. This shows very clearly that the EU does not put the environment first but, rather, seeks the best for industry. The last remark requires qualification, however, because the fishing industry will die out once the seas are depleted of fish.

A global view of what is just should be adopted when the EU’s fisheries policy is discussed. The rapporteur says explicitly that the EU’s fishing fleet is forced to compete with third countries’ fleets. The latter have much lower costs, and their products are consequently cheaper. By introducing tax relief, which is definitely not something for the Community to do, Mr Guerreiro wishes to distort the international market and thus deprive poor people of their only means of income. That is frightening and, at the same time, very tragic. The EU is, however, showing its true face in this case: that of an uncompetitive economy that is prepared to do anything to protect its production, at the same time as excluding the world’s poor.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy