Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt folgt der Bericht von Rosa Miguélez Ramos im Namen des Fischereiausschusses über die Anwendung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1185/2003 des Rates über das Abtrennen von Haifischflossen an Bord von Schiffen [2006/2054(INI) (A6-0263/2006)].

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE), ponente. – Señora Presidenta, fuera de mi tiempo de uso de la palabra –puesto que no tiene nada que ver con el asunto que estamos tratando, ya que se trataría más bien de una cuestión de orden– quisiera hacerle un ruego a la Presidencia de este Parlamento derivado de un incidente que me acaba de ocurrir.

Hace escasamente un cuarto de hora salí un momento del Hemiciclo al pasillo de aquí atrás y me encontraba tranquilamente observando las aguas del canal, cuando me vi literalmente arrollada por una comitiva que –luego me enteré– rodeaba al Presidente del Líbano. Hasta aquí nada que no hayamos visto infinidad de veces en esta Casa. Lo que me chocó, Presidente Borrell, fue la actitud de las dos personas, con identificación del Parlamento, que abrían la comitiva.

Primero me hicieron gestos. Luego me dieron voces: «Mettez-vous sur le côté!», me dijeron y no sé si lo sabe, pero el «côté» aquí atrás está formado de unas planchas con agujeros por los cuales los tacones femeninos se cuelan, con lo cual es muy fácil caerse. Yo intentaba evitar irme «sur le côté». Les indiqué –tengo que decirlo así– que era miembro del Parlamento, pero puedo asegurarle que no sirvió de mucho. Prácticamente me arrollaron hasta situarme donde querían: «Sur le côté immédiatement!».

Señor Presidente, tratándose de personal de la Casa, del horario inclemente de estas sesiones de noche, le rogaría a usted, si es posible, que encontrásemos otros métodos para tratar a los diputados o, a lo mejor, otros caminos para hacer salir a los visitantes.

Dicho esto, señor Presidente, paso al expediente que nos ocupa. Por lo tanto, paso a los peces pertenecientes al taxón de los Elasmobranchii, que son en general muy vulnerables a la explotación, debido a las características de su ciclo vital.

La práctica denominada «finning», entendida como el corte de las aletas y el desperdicio del cuerpo, está prohibida a los buques comunitarios, tanto en las aguas marítimas sometidas a soberanía de los Estados miembros, como en las aguas internacionales y de terceros países. No obstante, y dado que estas especies forman parte de capturas accesorias, la Unión Europea aprobó el 26 de junio de 2003 un Reglamento sobre el cercenamiento de las aletas de los tiburones.

El Reglamento permite la manipulación de los tiburones en el barco, separando aletas y cuerpos, si con ello se utilizan de manera más eficaz todas las partes, almacenando a bordo las aletas y el resto del animal por separado. Para controlar que no se incurra en la práctica del «finning» la cantidad de aletas debe corresponder con la de cuerpos y para ello se establece una ratio o proporción con respecto al peso vivo total, ratio que se estableció en 2003 en el 5 % de aletas respecto del peso vivo. Este 5 % se decidió basándose en la legislación estadounidense diseñada para una realidad diferente y para especies de tiburones costeros y presentaciones distintas.

Los informes científicos de ICES y la CICAA avalan que dicha ratio no es aplicable a las especies pelágicas que captura la flota comunitaria, cuya fisonomía implica tamaños de aletas muy superiores a las de los tiburones costeros.

Quiero indicar que ese actual 5 % de la regulación en vigor y el 6,5 % que propongo para una sola especie –en este caso la tintorera– están en línea con los últimos informes científicos. En cualquier caso –y lo señalo al Comisario– el principal objetivo de la legislación comunitaria debe ser el refuerzo de la prohibición de la práctica del «finning», pero —le indico también—, para que una norma sea eficaz y aceptada por todas las partes, tiene que reflejar las especificidades de las flotas, la morfología de las diferentes especies y unos métodos de cálculo que incluyan la técnica de corte y los métodos de presentación utilizados.

Además, señor Comisario, ésta es una pesquería muy determinada y muy identificable y, por lo tanto, el reconocimiento de estas cuestiones permitiría evitar situaciones de infracción a la flota palangrera de la Unión Europea, que se ve en este momento obligada a deshacerse de una parte de las aletas para poder cumplir la norma, ya que más del 80 % de las capturas corresponden a la especie que ya he mencionado Prionacea o tintorera, cuya ratio es, como hemos dicho, del 6, 5 %.

Le digo a la Comisión que no utilizar factores de conversión realistas supone un riesgo para la propia Unión Europea, porque genera errores en las estimaciones de capturas, estimaciones que se obtienen de forma indirecta a partir del mercado internacional de aletas en países asiáticos, donde figuran como de procedencia europea. Al mismo tiempo — se lo digo también al Comisario—, la actualización de este porcentaje a la vista, vuelvo a repetir, de los datos y de los informes científicos, permitiría a la Comunidad liderar, en lo inmediato, la revisión que, siguiendo la recomendación de su propio Comité Científico, se va a producir en el seno de la CICAA y que probablemente será seguida por otras ORP.

Insisto en que el aumento solicitado no supone, de ninguna manera, un incremento en la captura de tiburones ni un relajamiento de las medidas destinadas a prevenir la práctica del «finning».

PRESIDENCIA DEL SR. JOSEP BORRELL FONTELLES
Presidente

  El Presidente. Muchas gracias, señora Miguélez. Tomo buena nota de su queja. Lo pondré en conocimiento del jefe del servicio de seguridad del Parlamento a los efectos oportunos.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Miguélez Ramos and the Fisheries Committee for the opinion on the Commission report on the operation of the so-called Shark Finning Regulation. I am pleased to note that the rapporteur praises the clarity and conciseness of the Commission’s report and shares the view that this regulation is achieving its objective. Let me assure you that the Commission is committed to monitoring the application of this regulation to ensure its proper implementation, including of Member States’ obligations regarding control and reporting.

The Commission will also continue to promote the prohibition of shark finning in international forums. In addition, the Commission will continue in its endeavours towards the adoption of measures based on scientific information and other considerations within Regional Fisheries Management Organisations.

I would also recall that the prohibition of shark finning practices is not the only way to ensure a sustainable fishery for these species. A more comprehensive set of management measures is required. We have already taken some measures in this respect. I refer, in particular, to special efforts to improve scientific knowledge and data collection, to establish catch or effort limits for certain species, including deep-sea species, to prohibit drift nets that may catch some large pelagic sharks and to control and limit fishing capacity.

As rightly pointed out in Parliament’s motion for a resolution, the Commission has identified numerous actions to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond, including Community plans of action for sharks and sea birds.

My department is currently looking into the request for the presentation of a Community plan of action by mid-2007. While it is too early to have a clear overview of the detailed work programme for 2007, it is clear that a formal, complete and detailed plan of action requires a comprehensive assessment of the situation and of the possible measures, together with an early consultation of all interested parties, which will take time and resources. The desired timeframe seems rather too ambitious, and setting too short a timeframe for preparation and consultation could even be counterproductive. I would prefer to be less prescriptive in terms of deadlines. However, I can assure honourable Members that my department will undertake to complete the plan of action at the earliest possible date.

Returning to the report’s core concerns, I have taken good note of the proposed calls for the Commission to present amendments to the Shark Finning Regulation, especially with a view to reviewing the 5% fin weight versus live body weight ratio on the basis of a species-dependent approach, and to revise the possibilities for separate landings of fins and carcasses, as well as to report again on the operation of this regulation within two years.

When deciding on this regulation, the Council did not consider it appropriate to adopt a species-specific approach regarding the fin to body weight ratio. I think the reasons mentioned in the debate then are still valid now. A single 5% fin to live body weight ratio applicable to the whole shark-catch of a vessel is a realistic, feasible, controllable, simple and proportionate method of preventing shark finning practices from spreading. The Commission’s report also confirms this.

I am not, therefore, of the opinion that amendments to the regulation should be proposed at this stage. Firstly, because the regulation was only recently adopted and is working well overall. Secondly, because the Commission believes it would be unwieldy to start revising the fin to body weight ratio or introducing some species-specific approach to the Shark Finning Regulation without new measures to ensure sustainable shark fishing.

The much broader exercise of preparing a Community plan of action for sharks will necessarily include a reassessment of developments under the Shark Finning Regulation and its possible need for review, especially on the basis of the national annual reports, which are available for all those interested. It is at this point, therefore, that we will be able to consider once more the situation with respect to body-fin ratio and make any recommendations accordingly.

Parliament’s necessary full involvement in a proposal for a plan of action will also provide another opportunity for Parliament to be informed about and to play a role in developments on shark finning matters. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation. You can rest assured that I am always ready to act and to present all supporting evidence if new information becomes available indicating significant changes in the situation. I am committed to advances in the area of shark conservation and other aspects of marine biodiversity, and will inform you in due time of the progress made.

(Applause)

  Duarte Freitas, em nome do Grupo PPE-DE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhores Deputados, Senhor Comissário, quero agradecer também o trabalho da Deputada Miguélez Ramos e dizer que, antes de mais, é necessário clarificar e realçar que desde 2003 a prática do finning está regulamentada na União Europeia, não se podendo pescar tubarões apenas para aproveitamento das barbatanas.

Portanto, esta é uma pesca direccionada para uma espécie, como qualquer outra, o que coloca a matéria da sustentabilidade do recurso ao nível do que se passa para outros peixes, pelo que a questão da alimentação de capturas não se enquadra no objectivo deste relatório mas no âmbito de quotas ou até de planos de recuperação em função dos habituais relatórios científicos.

O que estamos aqui a discutir é o facto de a Comunicação da Comissão reconhecer o efeito positivo da regulamentação de 2003 e o seu cumprimento. O que tem estado, no entanto, mais em causa neste debate é a percentagem do peso das barbatanas no peso total dos tubarões. O que os relatórios do ICAT dizem é que o aproveitamento total das barbatanas que a frota comunitária faz difere, por exemplo, do aproveitamento parcial que a frota dos Estados Unidos faz, razão pela qual será necessário estudar a possibilidade de alterar a percentagem em função dos relatórios que já apontam para uma subida de 5 para 6,5%. E é isto que está em causa.

Não ter em atenção esta realidade é confundir o aproveitamento total de uma pescaria com a preservação de um recurso. Temos de preservar o recurso, mas isso faz-se noutro plano. No plano que estamos a debater, a adequação das taxas de aproveitamento à realidade e aos relatórios científicos garantirá que se evitem fugas. A solução de compromisso alcançada entre os três maiores grupos políticos garante o entendimento do Parlamento Europeu de que deverá ser este o caminho a seguir, respondendo assim aos estudos já existentes de entidades reconhecidas, de que a União Europeia faz parte, e assegurando, por outro lado, as condições de cumprimento da lei, contribuindo deste modo para uma verdadeira pesca sustentável e regulada.

  Catherine Stihler, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I am delighted that the UK Government was one of the key supporters of Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 concerning the disgusting practice of removing shark fins on board vessels. The regulation is designed to prevent shark finning, where shark carcasses are thrown overboard after high-value shark fins have been removed. You could call this ‘slit and chuck’. Without their fins, the sharks suffocate to death.

The practice of shark finning is known to endanger the survival of several shark species. Only today American researchers using fish auction records from Hong Kong have calculated that the trade in shark fins kills 26 million to 73 million sharks a year. Against this background, I am appalled and disappointed that this report threatens an increase in shark finning.

Paragraph 5 of the report requests an increase of the 5% fin- to live-weight ratio to 6.5%, particularly for blue sharks. Paragraph 3 of the report incorrectly implies that ICES and ICCAT support an increase in fin- to live-weight ratio for the blue shark. A paper was submitted to ICES in 2005, but ICES has not considered this paper or issued an opinion. The same goes for ICCAT, where scientists have reviewed fin to carcass ratios but have not recommended an increase of the ratio.

Amendment 1 is placed first on the voting list, and I recommend support for it. I fear that the European Parliament may not give its support to any of these amendments, a retrograde step, and I ask colleagues to say no to ‘slit and chuck’.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, we can argue whether a 5% ratio of fin weight to body weight is appropriate or whether a larger proportion is needed. I have no doubt that an increase would be wrong, but no doubt the Spanish and Portuguese fishing interests would argue the other way. I hope Parliament will be able to support my proposal for a study based on best scientific evidence before any decision is made. I hope it will do that not simply because it represents a compromise in those positions but because it is the most appropriate way forward.

So far as I am concerned, the whole shark fin regulation has always been too weak. It was far too weak when we introduced it. Enforcement is problematic to say the least and, as in so many aspects of fishing, varies from one Member State to another. It certainly needs to be reviewed at regular intervals. The idea that we should just have one review and that is the end of it, as originally intended, is simply nonsense. I hope the Commissioner will support the idea of more regular reviews, just as I support him in opposing the idea that quotas should be set for long periods of time.

The real issue here is so much bigger. We face the prospect of the extinction of many shark species – slow-breathing creatures that have lived on this planet for many millennia longer than our own species. The risk is that with this particular regulation we are simply playing at the edges.

We are killing too many sharks. We have to stop that. We need the Commission to come forward with a shark management action plan. We have heard from the Commissioner why it will take time to do that, but I seem to remember joining with other Members of Parliament in calling for this some three years ago. I hope that the Commissioner will be able to finish this debate by telling us exactly how much work has already been done over the past three years in preparing the groundwork for publication of the shark management action plan. My impression is that absolutely nothing has been done. I hope the Commissioner can correct that impression.

  David Hammerstein Mintz, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor Presidente, espero que la Comisión mantenga su posición de firmeza ante los intentos de reducir las exigencias para el corte de las aletas de los tiburones. Con esta propuesta, los tiburones pueden estar todavía más amenazados de lo que lo están ya.

Según los estudios científicos, no está nada claro en qué medida debería aumentarse el ratio; hay incluso un estudio de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza que limita el ratio a un 2 %. Hay que buscar toda la información científica, porque, con esta enmienda, se pretende cambiar la norma, para que se pueda aumentar el porcentaje del peso de las aletas con respecto a los cuerpos de los tiburones y, así, se arrojarían cada vez más capturas al mar.

Los tiburones están siendo aniquilados en los océanos, para satisfacer el capricho asiático de cocinar sopa con sus aletas, y eso no está bien. Es difícil vigilar lo que ocurre en alta mar y existen suficientes evidencias de que muchos Estados miembros no están controlando el cumplimiento de la legislación comunitaria.

Estrechar todavía más el cerco sobre un animal, del que dos tercios de sus especies en Europa están ya en la Lista Roja de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, no es una buena idea.

  Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the UK, Germany and Belgium fought very hard to implement a ban on shark finning in 2003. They received wide support in the Council. Spain and Portugal now appear to be the only Member States pushing for an amendment to the regulation in respect of the 5% ratio of fins to live weight of shark catch. They say that the current regulation is unrealistic, particularly for the blue shark, which is the main target of their fishery and which they claim is in great abundance in EU waters. I think the strong international market for shark fins, mostly as we have just heard for the Asian shark fin soup market, coupled with the relatively low value of shark meat, has motivated Spain and Portugal to support this drastic amendment.

It remains a fact that the 5% ratio of fins to live weight contained in EU legislation is the weakest in the world, as Mr Davies told us. The proposal in this report for a 6.5% ratio would quite simply allow more sharks to be killed. It would send all the wrong negative signals to the international community. The higher the ratio, the more likely it is that the illegal practice of finning will recur. That is why I have tabled an amendment which proposes that the figure be lowered to 2% of live weight. That would ensure the protection of sharks in EU waters, increase that protection and fall in line with international standards.

The IUCN, the World Conservation Union, has confirmed that the blue shark is endangered and will be placed on its red list as a vulnerable species when that list is updated later this year. In such circumstances, it would be madness to permit more of these sharks to be killed. Indeed, we should be seeking to impose a strict regime of TACs and quotas on blue sharks to offer the species additional protection.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, firstly I wish to thank Mrs Miguélez Ramos for all the work she has done in preparing this own-initiative report. The corresponding Commission report is clear in reiterating that finning is prohibited within the Community, and in its conclusion that the percentage equivalence ratio of shark fin to body weight does not need to be altered. The rapporteur disagrees with this percentage ratio figure, and she is of the opinion that it should be increased from the level of 5% to 6.5%. This is the main issue of disagreement with the Commission report, and with some of us.

Mrs Miguélez Ramos argues that some scientific evidence favours her 6.5% ratio position, but let me say respectfully that other scientific evidence supplied by at least equally reputable sources supports the view that the 5% figure is in fact more than adequate. The latter scientific evidence further supports the view that if the ratio is indeed increased, this will result in the enhancement of the very practice we want to stop, i.e. finning. Such a practice, coupled with the general failure of implementation of the relevant Community regulation, will, in my view, lead with mathematical accuracy and in the not-too-distant future, to the endangerment of the very existence of certain shark species. In this respect, please note that an increase from 5% to 6.5% may seem small at first glance, but in reality it is not. It in fact represents an increase of 30%. In other words, potentially 30% of the shark catches could end up in finning.

Much as we wish to help increase the profits of our fishermen, it is our primary concern and duty to prevent the extinction of any shark species. I therefore urge you to support Mr Davies’ amendment tabled on behalf of the ALDE Group and aimed at maintaining the ratio at 5%, as proposed by the Commission and as supported by the Commissioner in his speech here tonight.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE). – Señor Presidente, me sorprenden las declaraciones del Comisario Borg cuando dice que una legislación que sea reciente no se puede modificar. Creo que las legislaciones, si no están bien, hay que actualizarlas.

Eso es exactamente lo que dice el informe Informe 2005 de la CICAA respecto de los ratios del tiburón. Según dicho informe, el ratio aplicado a la tintorera o Prionacea glauca está equivocado. Más aún: los científicos de la CICAA abogan por que se corrija. Y esto por dos razones: la primera es que los datos de desembarcos a partir de un coeficiente equivocado pueden engañarles en sus estimaciones; y, la segunda, que el desfase en el ratio impide las labores de control de la flota, ya que, al ser una norma de imposible cumplimiento, el control no tiene sentido.

Esto, señor Comisario, se demuestra en el informe que usted ha enviado a este Parlamento.

Señor Comisario, señor Presidente, quiero pedirles que, de una vez por todas, actualicemos y regularicemos las legislaciones, porque, de lo contrario, se crea una grave desconfianza en el sector al tener normas que, como digo, son de imposible cumplimiento.

También me gustaría que alguna de las personas que han hablado aquí alegando que hay informes científicos, me citara al menos uno, avalado por la comunidad científica internacional, que contradiga lo que ha dicho la CICAA en la última reunión plenaria de la Organización Regional de Pesca que regula, justamente, todas estas especies.

Pido que actuemos con racionalidad, que hagamos bien las cosas, que se revisen los coeficientes y que se elijan aquellos que puedan ser cumplidos por la flota. Porque le diré, además, que el problema de la sobrepesca no se soluciona con los ratios. En todo caso, se solucionaría con cuotas para los tiburones.

  Neil Parish (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I also welcome the Commissioner's statement at the beginning that he wants at least to remain at the 5% level of finning for the present. I believe – along with Mr Stevenson, and we have tabled an amendment to this effect – that instead of leaving it at 5% we need to reduce it to 2%. To take it up to 6.5% would only encourage the catching and finning of more and more sharks. Over 70 million sharks are taken each year and we really need to reduce the number. To increase it to 6.5% would be crazy.

We in Europe very much want a sustainable fisheries policy. We also want high welfare standards. If you increase the percentage of shark fins that can be landed, the chances of increasing the number of sharks caught and of finning are greater. We need to set an example to the world. In most parts of the world the percentage of fins that can be landed by fishing is lower. I therefore urge the Commissioner to go further and reduce the percentage of fins that can be landed.

However much more valuable shark fins are than the rest of the body, it is absolutely right that the whole of the body should be landed and used. It is crazy to carry on as we do when nearly 50% of the 130 species of shark are now endangered. We must take action.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I should like to thank honourable Members for their contributions. The only problem that has been raised substantively relates to the whole issue concerning 5% versus 6.5%. In this regard, I should say that the ratio between fin weight and body weight varies significantly depending on the shark species concerned. Scientific information was already available at the time the regulation was adopted, especially as regards the blue shark. The Council, however, did not consider that a species-dependent approach was appropriate, and the maximum 5% fin- versus live body-weight ratio set in the regulation was certainly not presented as being based on scientific considerations alone.

The 5% fin- to body-weight requirement represents the only current restriction on a number of shark species caught in fisheries, notably the blue shark. This should not be reviewed, at least until other management measures are in place to reduce their fishing mortality. I have no problem with further research, but this has to be done before any amendments are proposed. Again, I have no problem with regular reviews. I have made reference to an overall consideration of a Community plan of action for sharks, when we will have ample time to discuss this and other issues concerning conservation of sharks.

On the point raised by Mr Davies concerning the plan of action, the EU has not yet formalised a plan of action for sharks. Nevertheless, many of the actions that would constitute such a plan of action are already incorporated into Community legislation or other initiatives under the CFP. The EU has taken considerable management action with regard to sharks, for example the improvement of data collection for large pelagic shark species, the establishment of catch limits for certain shark species, skates and rays in the North Sea, deepwater sharks in the north-east Atlantic, prohibiting trawl fisheries within littoral areas in the Mediterranean, banning the use of driftnets that may catch large pelagic sharks, prohibiting shark finning and establishing specific conditions under which only the removal of fins of sharks may be authorised – which is what we are discussing today – and the control and limitation of fishing capacity.

It is important to note that many of these measures apply to EC vessels, irrespective of whether or not they operate in EC waters. Such measures should also be promoted in the international context, especially in other FMOs where we support measures to ensure appropriate management in respect of high-sea fisheries.

The Commission’s departments are currently reflecting on whether a formal plan of action for sharks should be developed in the very near future and I am favourably inclined to doing so. However, considering the importance of the work to be done, the necessary collection of information, reflection and consultation and assessment of possible measures, it would not be realistic to set the finalisation date of any comprehensive Commission proposal for a plan of action for sharks within the time limit indicated in Amendment 8.

  El Presidente. Muchas gracias, queda cerrado el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana a las doce.