Oral explanations of vote

Report: Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (A7-0239/2012)

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the decision to vote for the report was a very easy one, for it aims to give much better protection to fish stocks and spawning populations. The most important element of the plan is, after all, to establish objectives and targets. It was also important, from my perspective, that the Member States genuinely commit to complying with these provisions on an ongoing basis.

Although surprising from my perspective, the provisions to include recreational fishing in impact analyses were equally important, for it must be acknowledged that recreational fishing, although its name implies relaxation, is now assuming professional proportions and must therefore be included as well.

I would like to conclude by thanking the Member States who, by releasing salmon into their rivers, have made a contribution to stabilising salmon populations in Europe.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, I share the concerns of my colleagues from the north. In the Baltic Sea Region fish stocks resources are over-exploited. This could lead to salmon disappearing from the region and put at risk the activity of fishermen. Therefore I support the creation of a multinational plan for the management of the fisheries on the salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea. The Commission should introduce more and stricter controls on recreational fishing and evaluate its real impact on the level of Baltic salmon.

Report: Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (A7-0295/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the practice of ‘finning’ is unacceptable from an environmental point of view because it threatens the sustainability of some shark species targeted by this practice, from the social and economic point of view because it involves squandering a source of food with commercial value, and also from the moral point of view because it shows a total disrespect for animal life. Although finning has since 2003 been banned in European waters and by the European fleet, the Commission has decided to present a proposal to end the derogation from the ban on removing shark fins on board EU fishing vessels. This proposal increases the protection necessary for sharks and will allow the EU to make an active contribution to global efforts to eradicating the cruel practice of finning in other parts of world, too.

Report: Jörg Leichtfried (A7-0096/2012)

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. It will allow the Commission to adopt crucial elements of non-legislative acts. Overall the proposal aims at placing 10 regulations under the legal framework of the Lisbon Treaty. This will enhance common commercial policy. Further economic growth depends on empowering the Commission to adopt non-legislative acts on common commercial policy. Strengthening common commercial policy will enhance economic growth, as the Commission is responsible for making all Member States follow these regulations.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report because the common commercial policy has brought significant benefits to both European consumers and producers, and it must be managed in the same efficient manner, including by granting the Commission the power to modify non-essential parts of the regulations through delegated acts.

I support the rapporteur’s opinion that the European Parliament and the Council should be able to oppose delegated acts that affect important aspects of legislation at any time. Nevertheless, in order to keep up with technological development and changes in the field, the delegated acts procedure is the best instrument, provided it includes the consultation of all relevant stakeholders. The current proposal is a good solution to maintaining the global competitiveness of the Union. With the current economic climate, the common commercial policy must bring benefits for the Union and its citizens.

Report: Pat the Cope Gallagher (A7-0342/2012)

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, fish stocks are limited resources. In this respect the technical conservation measures for fishery resources are among the key elements of an approach to fisheries management and we need to regionalise the approach. I take note of the Commission’s proposal extending the rules on technical measures for another transitional period, but additional changes are necessary to complete the update. For instance, there is a need to readjust areas where cod, haddock and whiting fishing is banned. However, I regret that the Commission’s proposal is again on transitional technical measures. The fishermen need clear legal clarity and cannot continue to base their activities on temporary measures. I call on the Commission to submit a permanent solution on technical measures as soon as possible.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, we were here last night until almost midnight, debating all of the proposals on fishing. We had an excellent debate and it heartened me that these proposals were very positive and very practical. In particular, I would like to praise Mr Gallagher, my Irish colleague, for all of the good work that he does. He is like a fishing professor, but it is a pity that we were unable to adopt the proposals, especially for the final vote, because we did not have proper cooperation from the Council, and Mr Gallagher was quite right to cancel the final vote. I hope that we will have some cooperation so that these fine proposals can be implemented.

Report: Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (A7-0295/2012)

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, the removal of fins from sharks onboard vessels is a practice which neither I nor my political group can support. Any derogation or loophole in legislation which creates a potential for allowing shark carcasses to be discarded at sea must be stopped immediately. This barbaric practice can lead to sharks either starving, drowning or being eaten by other fish and the process often takes a number of days.

It is shameful that these creatures are treated in such a way and as self-proclaimed proponents and enforcers of animal rights globally it is embarrassing that the European Union is behind many other countries around the world when it comes to enforcing rules on the removal of shark fins. I am fully in support of the Commission’s proposal to remove the ability of Member States to issue special fishing permits, thereby mandating that sharks are landed with their fins naturally attached.

I do not wish to see in any way a continuation of the derogation in this regulation.

  Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE). – (PL) I am very perturbed by the brutal practice of removing shark’s fins on board vessels and then throwing the sharks’ bodies into the sea. This practice is exceedingly cruel. It is wasteful and a direct threat to many rare species of shark. That is why I voted in favour of the European Commission’s proposal that strengthens the Union’s ban on removing sharks’ fins on board vessels, allowing no derogations. I also voted against those amendments that would extend the existing loopholes in the ban on removing sharks’ fins and that proposed the implementation of expensive methods that have proved ineffective. The approach of ensuring that fins are naturally attached has been in force and has proved itself over a long period of time in many countries such as the US and Australia, and most Member States of the European Union do not allow sharks’ fins to be removed on board vessels. The EU’s provisions cannot allow any derogations from that ban. Thank you.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, it was a great pleasure to vote for this report as I myself have campaigned for more than 10 years – for a time, as the animal welfare officer of my parliamentary group in the German Bundestag – for a ban on the removal of fins of sharks. Now, at European level at least, we have a regulation that no longer permits any exemptions.

As we know, any exemption, no matter how well-intentioned, creates loopholes and is not at all in the interests of animal welfare. I have always regarded the exemptions as unethical, which is why I am very pleased that the House has adopted this decision today.

The task now is to implement this decision not only in the European Union’s Member States – in other words, in its actual area of application – but worldwide, for as we know, animal welfare is indivisible. I wish everyone every possible success in taking this initiative forward.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as we all know, most people are frightened of sharks. However, sharks have populated the world’s oceans for centuries, and I believe that we should not try to imagine a world without them. In my view, we have spoken for every person in Europe by voting by such a large majority to prohibit shark finning today.

Shark fin soup is a particular delicacy, and shark finning was therefore a common practice in the past as well. After finning, the sharks are dumped back in the sea. This is not only barbaric; it is also a massive waste of resources. The fins are the most valuable part of the shark because they are the ingredients for soup, which is a lucrative business, but this practice cannot be allowed to continue.

With this large majority, we have sent a very clear message today that this practice cannot continue. In fact, a ban has been in place in Europe since 2003, but there were a great many exemptions. We can remove these exemptions if we specify that the sharks must be landed with their fins naturally attached to the body. That is the only way to put a stop to this barbaric practice.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, I support Parliament’s legislative resolution on the proposal to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003. The purpose of the amending regulation brought forward by the Council is to ban, without exception, the practice of removing shark fins from captured sharks aboard fishing vessels. The practice of finning, whereby fishermen capture sharks, cut off their fins and dump the rest of the animal into the ocean, cannot be accepted. It is cruel and barbaric and does not make for a balanced environment. It must be banned immediately, everywhere.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, the removal of shark fins on board vessels is a needlessly barbaric and wasteful practice. I support the animal welfare campaigns and the EU regulation now proposed to end the excision of fins from sharks to make shark fin soup and then throwing the animals’ carcasses back into the sea for a slow and painful death.

In Britain we have already made it illegal to practise shark finning on British registered vessels, and it is surely time now for the EU to meet the standards set by many other countries worldwide. There must therefore be no further loopholes and no derogation specifically aimed at Spanish and Portuguese fishermen on this issue. Furthermore, we should also look more closely at the notion of overfishing of certain species of sharks, which threatens to bring about the extinction of these species, which have been alive and well and thriving in our oceans for over a million years. It would be tragic to see an extinction of the shark generally.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I voted for this report as it proposes closing the loopholes in the present legislation and ensuring that all sharks caught by EU vessels anywhere in the world are landed with their fins naturally attached, without exception. The inhumane practice of finning should have absolutely no place in modern fishing. It involves the removal shark fins at sea and throwing the shark back into the sea where it generally suffers a cruel and painful death.

Unfortunately, this practice has been increasing due to insatiable thirst for profits of major multinational fishing corporations and has gone largely unmanaged and unmonitored. It is estimated that 100 million sharks are killed for their fins annually. This practice has a devastating impact on shark populations around the world, threatening the stability of marine ecosystems and damaging the fishing industry in many poorer countries. It is vital that this barbaric practice is ended and that the fishing of sharks is regulated internationally.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0497/2012

  Cristiana Muscardini (ECR). – (IT) Mr President, I support the resolution adopted today on international child abduction and on management of relations with the third countries that have acceded to the Hague Convention. The problem, however, persists within EU countries: not all Member States have accepted or implemented the convention and institutions continue to exist, such as the Jugendamt in Germany, where the rights of minors are subsidiary to those of parents and national rights and where the competences of the EU are non-existent. I hope that this report will focus attention on cases of child abduction between Member States. We must remember that it should be a priority for the EU to encourage Member States to accept and apply the Hague Convention, in order to achieve a just solution for bi-national children and couples. A central EU body should be established to deal with family law.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, international child abduction is a morally reprehensible act that can cause severe psychological damage to children and parents alike. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction gives the legal means to fight this transborder phenomenon. I am aware that the Council is contesting the legal basis on which the Union would approve accession to this Convention for eight new members. This is the reason why my colleagues’ action is so timely. The Parliament cannot allow any delays that might prevent future misconduct. I ask the Commission, along with my colleagues, to clarify in the shortest possible time the Union’s exclusive competence in this matter. We must allow these eight new members to accede to the Convention and call on the appropriate institutions to speed up their cooperation. Every minute and every hour counts in the fight against this illegal practice. We should remember that the children of this world count on us for their protection.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0496/2012

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I have not been able to support the motion for a resolution, since it does not take account of the present contribution of Slovakia and other new Member States of the European Union to emission reduction. These countries have met the undertaking arising out of the Kyoto Protocol and thus helped the European Union as a whole to get to the front in the struggle against climate change. It is unacceptable that our countries’ contribution is not being taken into account at all. The ban on the transfer of emission units will cost Slovakia and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe a significant volume of resources and investment in the green economy.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I was unable to vote for this resolution because Romania did not exhaust its emission quotas. It still owns a large number of green certificates, which could not be traded and this could cause great financial losses for the country. A different solution for states owning fewer units must be found so that they can use them even after 2012. This, however, must be done in a responsible way while also protecting the environment.

Romania’s objectives for the Europe 2020 strategy proved its commitment to tackling climate change. However, a ban on emission units trade after 2012 could discriminate against my country and other countries in a similar situation.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0498/2012

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because I support the review of the International Telecommunications Regulations at the Conference. It aims to improve the interconnections between global information technologies and services, while ensuring that they are efficient and offer benefits for the public. Free information exchange and equal access to information for all is vital.

I believe that the text of the Regulation must be updated so that it better reflects telecommunications and information technology developments. The Conference offers a better opportunity for collaboration for all countries and can help them to enhance their social and economic development, and their capacity to cope with a fast-changing medium.

Report: Maria Eleni Koppa (A7-0274/2012)

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because the final text no longer includes the provision to create a new category of membership of the Union, and because I believe that it confirms the Union willingness to continue its enlargement. I hope that this report, which takes a relatively optimistic view of enlargement, will continue to be one of the few successful policies of the European Union. In my view, the initial Copenhagen accession criteria continue to define the Union. I welcome the way in which the rapporteur raised the issue of the new Member States’ ability to withstand the requirements of the Union in order to eliminate the risks of blocking internal mechanisms.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against Ms Koppa’s report, primarily because it expresses Parliament’s strong support for the enlargement process and completely fails to take account of the fact that Turkey, in reality, has no place in the European Union.

Paragraph 28 explicitly states that there are positive developments in Turkey. This report completely overlooks the fact that in Turkey, ethnic and religious minorities, especially Christians, are still being persecuted, and that only a few days ago, Prime Minister Erdogan – yet again – openly called for the death penalty to be reintroduced. How can anyone possibly talk about ‘positive development’ in Turkey? I am aghast!

I voted against this report out of deep conviction. Let me say again: Turkey is not ready for Europe and it will never be part of Europe. I will continue to oppose such a move.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Thank you, Mr President. As things stand at present, the enlargement process is not just an opportunity for Europe’s continued economic development, but perhaps most importantly, it is also an opportunity to enhance the security of European countries, especially in the key Balkan region. The countries of that region are making steady progress, bringing their legislation into line with the Union’s provisions. I trust that the remaining countries will soon follow Croatia and accede to the Union. I should also like to recall the need for further commitment to enlargement policy towards the East. The situation of Ukraine is particularly important for Poland. Ukraine is one of our largest neighbours, and therefore has a significant impact on relations in the area. In addition, it is important to actively encourage the new Georgian Government, to ensure it implements its declared policy of maintaining the country’s pro-European stance. I believe that the support for enlargement contained in the report and the proposed actions aimed at building public confidence in that idea are entirely relevant and fully in line with the interests of the citizens of the Member States.

I voted in favour of the report.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, enlargement policies and criteria must be tailored to the needs of the candidate and potential candidate countries, and also to the needs of their citizens, as well as responding to the criteria and principles of the Union. Therefore, it is important to pay greater attention to the reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption and fraud at an early stage. This is why I welcome the Commission’s decision to open Chapters 23 and 24 early on in the accession process and to work on the basis of concrete, detailed benchmarks. Also, a lesson learned is that enforcement is the key to fulfilling these conditions. To remain credible, the accession process must be merit-based, tailored, benchmark-driven and transparent.

The High-Level Accession Dialogue with Macedonia is a good initiative, but this does not and should not replace the accession process. We are to judge Macedonia on its merits; the country surely deserves to start the accession negotiations now.

  Monika Smolková (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, 20 years after the Copenhagen conference, we have an economic crisis.

We have to say what the European Union has brought for the accession countries. The EU is without doubt a successful project. It has achieved great changes in people’s lives, but the crisis facing us imposes new roles. We must talk more about what values a common Europe has brought to people, and also more about the scope of solidarity. We must also talk about the social challenges, since this dimension is of the utmost importance. Many of us would not be here today were it not for enlargement. Enlargement has contributed to peace, stability and prosperity in the EU. Human rights and freedoms are the basis for the rule of law. Enlargement is beneficial for the entire EU, bringing it a better standing in the resolution of global problems and therefore I have supported the resolution and the conditions which should enhance the credibility and effectiveness of enlargement.

The entire accession process should define transparent and fair benchmarks, creating concrete steps towards accession, which would not be called into question, since it would be the consequence of clear, concrete and measurable objectives.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Ms Koppa’s report is not a bad report, but it bypasses the real problems. Let me add my voice to others: Macedonia needs high-level talks and I welcome the fact that these have now been initiated, but that should not stop us from doing our utmost to end the Greek blockade against this country, preferably before the end of the year.

As regards Kosovo, I regret that bureaucracy has prevailed and the reference to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 has been retained in a footnote. Kosovo is now an independent European country which has been recognised by the majority of EU Member States, and it is high time that the five countries which have not yet done so finally recognised Kosovo, so that it can move towards visa-free travel and a trade agreement with the European Union.

Let me make one last point, if I may. I am also critical of the highly euphemistic statements made in this report about Turkey. Accepting Turkey as an accession candidate was a mistake. Turkey is not a European country and it does not fulfil the criteria.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0522/2012

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Mr President, first of all I want to welcome the ceasefire that was announced in Gaza yesterday, and I call for its full implementation by both sides. This means that there should be no rockets from Gaza into Israel – on the one hand – but it also means that Israel needs to stop its bombardment of Gaza and also ensure that there are no extrajudicial assassinations by Israel.

But we need to ensure that the ceasefire leads to a lasting peace, otherwise we will be here again in a few months or in a few years. That is why I was particularly happy to co-sign and sponsor this motion, which sets out a roadmap for a lasting solution. It calls for an end to the Gaza blockade, and it reiterates EU support for the two-state solution, recognising Palestine’s right to statehood and also acknowledging that Israel has the right to live peacefully within its borders.

I was particularly pleased with the vote today recognising Palestine’s bid for UN membership. I call on all EU Member States to acknowledge the vote in the European Parliament, and to speak with one voice and support the Palestinian bid for observer status in the UN.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Armed conflict is a most undesirable response to any situation. As regards the peace process in the Middle East, we have repeatedly supported the view that Israel and Palestine have the right to coexist as independent states. We have also expressed our firm commitment to security in that unstable region.

In the current context, we must reiterate our appeal for an end to the use of force and a resumption of peace talks. The continuing rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas must be strongly condemned. The same applies to the illegal arming of Palestinians from outside. The Tel Aviv Government was forced into taking measures to counter Palestinian aggression in order to defend its citizens. As I endorse the motion, I declare myself in favour of the existence of two independent and democratic states with Jerusalem as their capital. At the same time, I wish to express my solidarity with the Israeli people who have been the victims of brutal aggression, and to condemn to activities of Palestinian extremists. I do not therefore support the call to end the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I voted for this resolution, although it does not go far enough, in my view. I therefore wish to make the following points. Firstly, I believe that we should in future attach conditions to the EUR 600 million that the European Union provides every year as assistance to the region, and that applies to both parties. Everything that has been said applies, of course, to both parties equally.

The second point is this. It should be made clear to Israel that imprisoning millions of people behind barbed wire and walls that are several metres high does not work in the long term. The GDR, which has vanished from the map, is the classic example. It does not work. The only way forward is to engage in talks with the partner, even if the partner concerned is regarded as less than ideal. In my view, there will be no option but to talk to Hamas, for example, sooner or later. Austria has a strong tradition here. I recall that Austria and Bruno Kreisky were criticised when we talked to Arafat and Fatah. With hindsight, however, it proved to be the right move and culminated in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. The same must surely apply today!

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I am very pleased that we have managed to prepare a balanced resolution on the situation in Gaza. Like most of my colleagues and most citizens of the European Union, the agreement on a truce fills me with cautious optimism. I am nevertheless unable to support the proposed Article 5 of the resolution, which deviates sharply from the overall tone of the resolution. If we are talking about seeking a compromise solution, with which both sides in the conflict will be able to live, we cannot also support the claims of one of the sides. This is not a responsible and balanced approach, this is not the way to a peaceful solution. National sovereignty for the territory inhabited by the Palestinians may be the incentive for attempts to live together in peace, not the starting point for negotiations.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, for eight days the people of Gaza suffered under a horrific Israeli onslaught. It took the lives of almost 150 Palestinians, the majority of whom were civilians, and a number of whom were children. From the Nobel Peace Prize winners – Obama and the EU – we had the usual support for the right-wing Israeli narrative that this was about Israel’s right to protect its population, as a statement of the Foreign Affairs Council of the EU declared. This onslaught had nothing to do with the security of ordinary Israelis and everything to do with the interests of that right-wing Israeli establishment seeking to increase support in advance of January’s general election and seeking to disrupt the attempt to get UN recognition for Palestine.

I welcome the announcement of the ceasefire, which does mean that the people of Gaza could sleep last night without bombardment, but a lasting peace will only be achieved when there is an end to the national oppression of the Palestinian people and fundamental socialist change in the region in the interests of all working-class people. It is the Palestinian masses struggling from below, linking up with Israeli workers and poor, who can achieve that.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, thank you, I would firstly like to join those who have welcomed the ceasefire. We hope that this will be a long-term agreement, and a push to renew negotiations on long-term peace and a final agreement on the two states in this region. In my opinion, the resolution’s text is balanced.

It deplores the high number of civilian casualties and condemns the attacks against Israel and its civilian population by Hamas and other militias. Israel has the right to defend itself. Any aggression deliberately directed at the civilian population is unacceptable. I voted against paragraph 5, which supports Palestine’s aim to become an observer state of the United Nations. I definitely support Palestinian statehood but unilateral steps and obtaining recognition indirectly does not lead anywhere. An agreement needs to be reached with the neighbour.

Secondly, I do not believe that we want a state that is partly governed by a terrorist organisation and that does not recognise its neighbour’s right to statehood. I hope that political forces will appear which will be able to ensure peace in the region.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, as pleased as we are about the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and the Middle East, we are all aware that this region is a graveyard for ceasefires and therefore also for people. There is therefore an urgent need to work towards a durable and peaceful solution for the region at last. That must be based on recognition of Israel’s right to exist and its security interests, which must continue to be safeguarded and defended without any reductions, and of the rights of the Palestinians to form their own state. In other words, what is needed is a two-state solution.

Although this issue is dealt with very well in paragraph 3 and the resolution itself is very good overall, I voted against paragraph 5. I am in favour of Palestine being integrated progressively into UN structures, but sadly, we have a long way to go before that can happen. I believe that this was quite the wrong signal to send out just as the Hamas-controlled areas launched thousands of rockets over Israel. What we want is a peace settlement first. Palestine’s integration into UN structures can take place after that.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I abstained from voting because, even though I support the Middle East peace process, I do not believe it can continue as long as Hamas chooses violence over peaceful negotiations, and giving Palestine UN non-member observer status would only legitimate Hamas’s actions.

I believe that Israel has the right to defend its territory and citizens against all attacks. In my opinion, Hamas was wrong to attack civilian areas and kill innocent people. The bomb attacks in Tel Aviv are the best illustration of Hamas’s terrorist outlook. I also worry about the risks facing the Romanian community in Israel. I urge Hamas to stop its military aggression and to observe yesterday’s ceasefire so that the situation does not deteriorate any further.

Report: Arnaud Danjean (A7-0357/2012)

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against this report because, as the representative of a neutral country, I cannot possibly accept the proposals made in this report. What is being planned here is, quite simply, the further militarisation of the European Union, with more intensive cooperation between the EU and NATO. The report makes no reference to nuclear disarmament, and even proposes to link the provision of development assistance to some countries with military purposes and military cooperation in future. This further waters down the principle of separation between the EU and NATO.

From my perspective, as a representative of a neutral country, this is unacceptable, especially since exemptions are no longer made for neutral countries. I believe that no Member of this House from a neutral country can possibly vote for reports of this nature.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the report of Mr Danjean. I believe that the European Parliament needs to encourage Member States to make full use of their strategic and budgetary capacities to promote the CSDP. This policy has to remain the EU’s crisis management instrument. It also needs to be brought to its full potential, especially when it comes to implementation of the mechanisms introduced under the Lisbon Treaty.

I also want to stress the important role of EU civilian and military missions for the EU’s political credibility. As an example in this context, I want to mention our biggest CSDP mission, which is in Kosovo.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, since 2003 the EU has launched 19 civilian missions and seven military operations. We have the potential to bring positive changes in troubled regions. In the Western Balkans our engagement contributed to peace and security. Today’s Western Balkans still face serious challenges related to the rule of law, the protection of minorities and the fight against organised crime and corruption. The EU must be able to respond to these challenges and to the geopolitical changes taking place on the international scene. This is why we must reassess our security strategy, be more autonomous and show greater unity. More independence does not mean that existing alliances will be put aside. On the contrary, strong transatlantic relations will be further reinforced. The time has come for an ambitious Common Security and Defence Policy with the appropriate means.

  Monika Smolková (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, I supported the report since I believe that the EU security strategy has in previous years been inadequate and, in view of today’s security challenges, even obsolete.

Despite the fact that this area is governed by inadequate resolve on the part of some Member States, restricted as they are by the current crisis and small defence budgets, the Union must play an important role as security provider for Member States and their citizens. The Union must find a way to confirm its strategic independence through a strong and effective foreign, security and defence policy, making it possible to act independently, if necessary. Defence capabilities have been greatly affected by the economic crisis, but the EU security policy cannot be left to others. There must be the political will here. In order to fulfil this, the Commission and the Council must precisely define the strategic interests of the EU and set them so as not only to maintain current, existing defence alliances and links in a context of changing threats, but above all to create the prerequisites for building up our own capabilities to be able to respond to the development of threats.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, UK Conservatives have grave reservations about the CSDP, in particular that it will result in duplication of the work of NATO, which must remain the anchor to Britain’s national defence at a time of defence cuts. The advantage of NATO is to forge strong transatlantic links with the United States and there are serious concerns that the CSDP could decouple us from our American allies.

Nevertheless, I believe that it is in Britain’s interest to remain pragmatically engaged with CSDP operations when it can bring additional resources to bear. I am the rapporteur for the Horn of Africa and accept that the EU NAVFOR Atalanta mission, which fights piracy in the Indian Ocean, together with the EU training mission in Uganda, are proving useful. I will be watching with interest the mission to Mali with ECOWAS to see what it can do to stabilise the Sahel region, as well as the EULEX mission, which is a civilian mission to Kosovo. That has also proved fairly useful. So I remain, as it were, sceptical of CSDP but watching it with a great deal of interest.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, last weekend it was 90 years since Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi first formulated the vision of a united Europe in his article ‘Pan-Europa - a proposal’. He was a fervent champion of what was, in effect, a United States of Europe, and being a realistically minded pacifist, what he meant by this was, above all, a common foreign policy, regional arbitration and common defence structures. It is our task to continue this tradition and to work to ensure that Europe remains focused on its core tasks, and that is a Common Foreign and Security Policy!

If I may, I would like to quote two other great Europeans: Otto von Habsburg, who would have been 100 years old this week, and Franz Josef Strauß. They said that NATO only had a future if it was based on two equal pillars: the United States of America, and the United States of Europe. This is the course that we must consistently pursue, and that is what Mr Danjean’s report is doing.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I am rather sceptical regarding what one might term shortcuts towards developing a Common Security and Defence Policy. This is because I perceive this as a sort of ritual that is somewhat removed from reality. In recent years we have had to cope with a situation in which the key Member States of the Union adopted differing positions on every vital foreign policy issue. Indeed their positions were often diametrically opposed to each other. This is also true today, which is why I expressed my scepticism by voting against this report. It seems to me that we do not currently need appeals, slogans and mottos concerning a common foreign policy. I am more favourably inclined towards consideration of a common defence policy.

Report: Ioan Mircea Paşcu (A7-0356/2012)

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to talk about this important report on the Common Security and Defence Policy, which I support and voted for yesterday. It is the first report to enshrine the concept of, and interpret, the new Treaty of Lisbon clauses: the mutual defence and solidarity clauses. One of the key aspects is the capacity to develop a Common Security and Defence Policy, even though there is no clear will to implement it as yet.

In respect of Article 32 of the Treaty on the mutual defence clause, the report rightly calls for the creation of a permanent EU Operational Headquarters to ensure greater consistency in applying this clause.

In respect of the solidarity clause...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against this report, just as I voted against the reports by Mr Kelam and Mr Tarand, for the same reasons, which have been stated mutatis mutandis in relation to the Danjean report. I wish to elaborate, if I may.

There is an extraordinary lack of clarity on two key points in the report. Firstly, what does the obligation of aid and assistance by ‘all the means in their power’ actually mean? This goes much further than the collective defence commitment within the framework of NATO.

Secondly, there is a lack of precision in the definitions. What is a ‘man-made disaster’? Every war is a man-made disaster. Does a war then trigger a mutual assistance obligation for Member States?

I say it again: for someone who comes from a neutral country, this is unacceptable. The lack of clarity in this report made it impossible for me to support it, even though I would otherwise be in favour of its fundamental objectives, namely to provide mutual aid and assistance in the event of disasters.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, any EU Member State can be stricken by a natural or man-made disaster, or even be a victim of aggression such as a terrorist attack. We must be able to react fast to such instances and provide support to a fellow Member State. This is why Member States and the European Union must develop a policy for the prevention of and response to all major security threats identified. Better safe than sorry.

Creating a voluntary pool of pre-committed civil protection assets would, for example, much improve EU readiness. Another crucial issue is to find a proper balance that would allow for a quick response, involvement of all EU institutions, and enforcement of the principle of accountability for the decisions taken. Accountability is vital.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report because I believe that consolidating the common defence policy will help to define European identity. To this end, solidarity among the Member States and adequate financing is essential.

The mutual defence clause is an effective instrument should a Member State be under attack, but at present there are no practical measures for a coherent response should the state in question invoke the clause. For it to be implemented effectively, the Commission must be involved at a technical and political level. Though the risk of an attack against a Member State is very low, we must consider new types of threats such as cyber terrorism and cyber attacks, which should also feature in the rules on the implementation of the mutual defence clause.

Report: Tunne Kelam (A7-0335/2012)

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, the first and most robust report to deal exclusively with cyber security. None of the other provisions and reports on cyber crime is included here. The report deals with a permanent type of threat, technological attacks, of which there is very little awareness.

It should be noted that only 10 EU Member States have adopted a National Cyber Security Strategies to combat such attacks, which are becoming increasingly politically motivated and which some Member States have experienced. These attacks are very effective and have costly consequences for their targets. The report rightly calls on the High Representative to take these attacks into account when implementing Article 222 of the Treaty.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, I support the report. It is important for the European Union to keep up with the times, and networking is a fact of modern life. The world is more global than ever, and especially thanks to the internet.

It is not only trade and social intercourse that take place on cross-border networks; states also depend on the internet and on the security of data networks. It is therefore important to agree upon the safe use of information technology and digital technology and upon durable, reliable data services and the associated infrastructures, and also to find common operating models at European level. All of the barriers that hamper the defence and security of common data networks at EU level should be eliminated. Young people and children must also be remembered; protecting them in the digital network society is more important than ever.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, in March 2011 the European Parliament faced a cyber attack that targeted its computer network. A week before, the European Commission was the victim of a similar attack.

Cyber threats and attacks against government, administration, military and international bodies are a rapidly growing menace. We must address them and protect our communication structures and infrastructures from any kind of intrusion. Our first step is to update the European Security Strategy in order to identify how to pursue and prosecute individual, network-related and state-supported cyber attackers.

Other conditions, sine qua non, are the development of an EU cyber security strategy with a common definition of cyber security and defence, and the creation of a critical infrastructure warning information network at the European level. I would also like to say that cyber criminality is not limited to cyber attacks: vulnerable populations are also targeted by criminals acting from behind the computer. We must, therefore, also take steps in this direction.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, thank you, I voted in favour of the resolution on cyber security and defence. We have seen several cases where European Union institutions and individual Member States have suffered cyber attacks, such as Estonia in 2007. All agree that in the immediate future the number of such attacks will only increase and I therefore believe that these measures proposed by the European Parliament are necessary and very timely.

I agree entirely with the need for each Member State to adopt national action plans, but in particular there should be cooperation at various levels throughout the European Union and internationally, with the exchange of experience and sharing of knowledge.

Some countries that do not follow democratic values are inclined to either restrict the tremendous opportunities for communication or to subordinate these to their own interests. We need to take action to prevent the formation of favourable conditions enabling such countries and such policies of theirs to become consolidated.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - (GA) Mr President, I also voted in favour of this report and I congratulate the rapporteur, Tunne Kelam, on the excellent work he has done on this important, complex and controversial issue.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report because the main threats experienced by the Member States are new. The increasing number of cyber attacks is a major threat to the security and stability of the Member States. The Union must develop a cyber security strategy to prevent these attacks.

I propose the creation of a dedicated working group comprising IT and military experts from the Member States. They should collaborate with NATO and US experts in the field. For instance, Romania, in collaboration with its US partners, organises regular working sessions on cyber crime and Romanian experts have global recognition in this field. We have the human resources available and we should use them.

Report: Indrek Tarand (A7-0349/2012)

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, even though it still contains many controversial issues, such as energy security, which is the most important for the Common Security and Defence Policy. I wish to highlight two particularly relevant aspects of the report: the security component is very important for the Union’s capacity to respond to natural disasters but the focus is primarily on civilian capabilities, and less on military capabilities.

In addition, I would underline environmental best practices and their impact on security, namely the European Defence Agency’s GO GREEN project, which focuses on the importance of energy efficiency.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, climate change has an impact on security, peace and stability in the world. We must thank Mr Tarand for his work.

It is regrettable that climate change remains in the shadow of the financial crisis. The effects of climate change are often dramatic, and primarily target the world’s poorest and often most densely-populated areas. We should prepare for climate change. The communities that are affected by climate change should be helped to prepare and to adapt to changes in their living conditions. The most vulnerable victims of climate change are still women and children who need special care. This report signals to the European External Action Service Parliament’s desire that this important matter be given serious attention in EU policies.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, climate change and natural disasters have an impact on global security, peace and stability. They have a direct impact on the global economy and are also the source of political instability. Lack of fresh water or food can force populations to migrate to other regions that are not always friendly.

Therefore, we – as the European Union – should take the effects of natural disasters and climate change into consideration in our external action strategies, policies and instruments. However, do we need a special representative for climate security, or do we need a Council working group on climate security, for this purpose? I do not think so. This would create, above all, additional bureaucracy. I believe that climate security can and must be addressed with existing European policies.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report because, to date, climate change has only been considered from an environmental and economic perspective, but it also affects our security.

Natural disasters must be taken into account when preparing national and Community security strategies. That is why I am in favour of studies to investigate the potential impact of natural disasters and climate change crises on international and European security. The Union and its members must ensure that they have sufficient capacity to respond to climate-driven natural disasters.

These aspects must also be discussed with our most important partners. The Union’s role as a leader in this area must be consolidated through prevention, which requires a responsible and sustainable environmental policy.

Report: Liisa Jaakonsaari (A7-0355/2012)

  Paul Murphy, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, those who consider or claim that the human rights situation in Kazakhstan is improving should take note of the statement issued two days ago by the official representative of the Prosecutor-General. In this statement they accuse the unregistered opposition of extremist actions and say they filed a lawsuit to ban them, together with a host of independent and media outlets such as the newspapers Respublika and Vzglyad, the satellite television station K+ and dozens of associated online news sites. It is clear that the situation in Kazakhstan with regard to human rights has gone from bad to worse. With the effective banning of opposition parties and the media, Kazakhstan is most likely to see another wave of arrests followed by unfair trials and long prison sentences. This is intolerable and unacceptable. In addition, Vladimir Kozlov, the leader of the opposition party ALGA who was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison, lost his appeal three days ago. Human Rights Watch had declared that Kozlov’s conviction is unsound given that the charges against him are vague and overbroad and are fundamentally incompatible with human rights treaties Kazakhstan has signed. In addition, Vadim Kuramshin, the well known human rights defender, faces up to fourteen years in prison.

I make an urgent call here today for the immediate suspension of the negotiations on the enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement unless there is a profound and proven change in the human rights situation in Kazakhstan. This in my view must include an unconditional amnesty for all prisoners convicted on political grounds, including Vladimir Kozlov and Vadim Kuramshin. I call on the international trade union movement and civil society organisations to echo this call and to put pressure on European institutions and on Catherine Ashton, who will visit Kazakhstan next week, to make it crystal clear that there can be no business as usual with the Nazarbayev regime. It is not acceptable that the EU’s economic and strategic interests in Kazakhstan’s energy resources take priority over the deteriorating human rights situation.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Deeper and closer cooperation between the Union and Kazakhstan could be beneficial to both sides, particularly if Kazakhstan’s important role in global energy policy is taken into account. Kazakhstan falls within Russia’s area of economic influence, if only because it is a member of the customs union. It is therefore very much in our interest to take appropriate steps to bring Astana closer to Europe. The partnership and cooperation agreement will facilitate the development of a comprehensive framework for mutual economic development. At the same time, it is also important to encourage the Kazakh authorities to accede to the World Trade Organisation as soon as possible. The partnership must of course encompass issues such as the principles of the rule of law, good governance and democratisation, because these are the mechanisms on which European policy is based. In the context of Kazakhstan, it is also particularly important to regulate the status of the Caspian Sea. This involves cooperation with other Central Asian countries. We should encourage swifter progress towards an appropriate solution. I support the resolution.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, in 2011 Kazakhstan’s scored only 2.7 on Transparency International’s corruption perception index. For 2012, Freedom House describes the Kazakh judicial system as being dependent on the executive and with a lot of corruption. As proof of this, the Zhanaozen trials were rampant with independent accusations of evidence fabrication, torture and intimidation. The progress in the negotiation of the new partnership and cooperation agreement must be linked to the progress of political reform. Enforcing judicial independence and curbing corruption within the judiciary must be set as priorities. Also, the control and management of penitentiaries should be returned to the Ministry of Justice, and political prisoners must be released. We need binding commitments from the Kazakh authorities. I believe that EU financial aid must be conditional upon progress with clear benchmarks, binding deadlines and monitoring mechanisms.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, Kazakhstan is larger than Western Europe and represents a vital player in Central Asia and is an excellent model of Christian-Islamic coexistence in that country. Both its size and massive oil and mineral wealth ensure that it cannot be ignored by the EU, nor should it be, because it offers a bridge between Europe and Asia and the country has much to contribute to both continents.

Certainly it is perfectly able to retain links with Russia, by being part of the Eurasian Economic Committee and, at the same time, seek closer cooperation with the European Union. Such cooperation will bring tangible benefits to both sides, but it must come hand in hand with more democracy and better human rights for its people. We must also focus efforts on helping the Kazakh Government to develop its infrastructure in this vast country. If these goals can be met, the PCA, together with the eventual Kazakh accession to the WTO, will be a good idea and will more closely integrate Kazakhstan into European Union friendship internationally, together with its partners, and also into the multilateral organisations where Kazakhstan rightly belongs. It will also increase the chances of prosperity for its people. Therefore I support the report.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Kazakhstan is one of the largest countries of the region. It is a country with huge resources of raw materials. It is an important partner for the European Union as a whole and for individual Member States of the Union. I should like to draw attention to the huge economic progress made by Kazakhstan over the last 20 years. I have visited Kazakhstan seven times, and am well acquainted with it. I believe the country’s progress is worthy of note.

Issues concerning human rights must of course be taken into account. These are important matters and the European Parliament is duty bound to monitor them. We can be quite sure that neither the Council nor the Commission are going to do so on our behalf. I should point out, however, that Kazakhstan currently has many formal economic and political agreements with Russia. It would be worth encouraging closer links between Kazakhstan and Brussels, so that the former does not remain exclusively in the Russian sphere of political and economic influence.

Report: João Ferreira (A7-0291/2012)

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - (GA) Mr President, this will be my last speech this morning. Once again, I am happy to support these proposals and I see that 474 out of 532 Members voted in favour of them, something which is very interesting and very welcome.

This problem is a most important aspect of fishing because it deals with the small-scale fisheries, and these are the people that need most protection under the CFP. They do need a lot of protecting, particularly in the future, in relation to the way they are being discriminated against, especially by the big factory ships which are engaging in practices such as mincing and in not declaring their real catch when then come to shore. This is discriminating against smaller fishermen, it is obviously depleting stocks and it cannot be tolerated. I certainly look forward to giving the smaller fisheries a better shake into the future.

Report: Isabella Lövin (A7-0290/2012)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because the external dimension of the fisheries policy is complex and must protect the Union’s interests. In this context, we should promote sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biodiversity. We also need better overall fisheries management and coordination between the external and cooperation policies. The Union should aim to adopt harmonised and sustainable fisheries policies and improve its cooperation with its neighbours.

I wish to draw attention to the important role of the Union in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. A more coherent policy is needed to achieve our development objectives.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0520/2012

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution because I, too, believe that the European Parliament elections must be more closely linked to the election of the President of the Commission. The Commission must be formed on democratic principles; its President must play a more active role in the European Parliament election campaign. In this way, he or she will be able to convey their vision for the future of the Union, and the citizens will also be able to vote for the parties’ candidate for the Commission Presidency. Choosing the best option for the Commission will require time and we should think about bringing the elections forward by a month in.

The gender balance within the Commission should be considered more carefully, even though the competence criteria should remain paramount. In this way, the Commission could become a true government of the European Union and the European Parliament could monitor its activities more closely.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, I can say with some certainty that, in times of austerity, my constituents do not want their taxes spent on political campaigns and propaganda. I voted against these proposals that seek to further the use of pan-European parties, with all their expense and their ideology of promoting EU federalism. The majority of people in the UK do not share an EU identity. In successive EU elections, people have used the elections to express their disapproval of the EU. Opinion poll after opinion poll shows dissatisfaction with the EU and a wish for a referendum. My constituents do not wish to hear propaganda, paid for by their taxes, telling them how great the EU is. They feel the reality of cutbacks in public services, whilst the UK pays more and more to the EU – a luxury we cannot afford.

In 2014 the We Demand a Referendum Party will put on the ballot paper those words, ‘We demand a referendum’. This will allow the electorate from the UK to send you, and our government, a message, loud and clear, that we demand an in-out referendum.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (A7-0239/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report because I consider, first of all, that multiannual plans are vital for preserving fishing and are a useful tool available to the European Union. Through the proposed measures, this plan ensures the conservation status of all Baltic salmon stocks, allowing sustainable exploitation. In my opinion, it is also essential to take account of catches by recreational vessels, and this management plan therefore needs to include measures to tackle this problem.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The EU Member States are among the biggest salmon exporters in the world. Fishing is, traditionally and culturally, one of the main activities is the European Union and it is an important sector for the economy. I believe that the exploitation of fishing stocks should take into account the quality of the final product, without intervening unnecessarily in the ecosystem. From this point of view, the present report is clearly a step forward for sustainability in this area. The European Union must focus on competitiveness and productivity in the fishing sector while protecting the European ecosystems and biosphere.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which I supported, aims to establish a multiannual plan for the management of the fisheries exploiting salmon stock in the Baltic Sea. This fishing must be done in such a way that the conservation status of the whole Baltic stock, including all salmon river stocks, remains favourable, thereby guaranteeing sustainable exploitation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on a multiannual plan for the sustainable management of Baltic salmon stocks. Salmon stocks in around 30 Baltic tributaries are threatened by a reduction in genetic diversity. Baltic salmon stocks must be exploited on the basis of the principle of the maximum sustainable yield so that they can replenish themselves in the long term and their diversity must also be protected. I agree that in order to tighten controls on salmon fishing at least 50 % of landings in the Member States should be inspected and greater attention should be devoted to catch declarations and to increasing the number of inspections in ports. I welcome the proposal to establish full controls on all types of recreational fishing and to introduce a reporting requirement for this type of fishing. It is very important for the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) to provide financial assistance for the direct restocking of salmon.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report because it tackles a well-known problem that has yet to be solved. I welcome the Commission’s proposal on a multiannual plan and I believe that it would lead to more efficient management of fishing in the Baltic Sea. Extending the scope to all forms of fishing, including recreational fishing, is a welcome move since that recreational fishing is becoming more popular. Greater controls of fishing activities in the Baltic Sea countries is essential for the effective monitoring of all catches. This would ensure greater transparency, benefit the environment and make fishing sustainable.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Gróbarczyk’s report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock. The report was drawn up only after wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders, including fishermen, non-governmental organisations, anglers and advisory bodies. The report focuses on the lack of specific controls on recreational fishing, endangering at-risk species in particular. This report aims to lay down clear and specific rules to unify the principles applying to the management and control of recreational fishing.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the multiannual plan for conserving Baltic salmon is a vital part of the management of marine resources in the context of the common fisheries policy (CFP) reform. In order to adequately examine stock levels in the Baltic Sea, wide-ranging consultations have been held with stakeholders. The information obtained through this process highlights the lack of much essential data, which made this report more difficult to compile. Due to the lack of proper controls and information, recreational fishing in ‘service vessels’ was not covered, and has led to the uncontrolled development of recreational fishing and has thus had a significant impact on salmon stock levels in the Baltic Sea. It should be noted that we need to carry out wide-ranging consultation among interested parties in drawing up management plans for fish stocks in the European Union, with a view to identifying compromise solutions which can help to protect the environment and achieve sustainable fisheries development. I therefore welcome tighter controls on catches and believe that it would be useful to inspect at least 50 % of landings in each Member State so that we can ensure that a sufficient level of control has been established and thus contribute to the restoration of salmon stocks.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock. The principle of maximum sustainable yield should guide our actions in the regulation of recreational fishing and the management of the Baltic salmon stock. With this in mind, it is urgent to guarantee sustainable fishing of this species in order to preserve its genetic diversity.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Gróbarczyk report, which aims to establish a multiannual plan for the management of fisheries exploiting salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea, so as to guarantee sustainable exploitation of the stock. I support the recommendation to collect more scientific data on the extent of recreational fishing, as well as the impact of predators on the stock.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that the level of smolt production should be set at 80 % of the potential smolt production capacity for the different wild salmon rivers, in accordance with the recommendation made by Helcom (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission). Also, the scope of the Regulation should be expanded to include all forms of recreational fishing. I also support stricter controls on catches, such that at least 50 % of landings in each Member State should be subject to inspection.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Preserving our fish stocks, and particularly our salmon stocks, is not simply a matter of protecting a species. It is also, most importantly, a matter of protecting our environment, our culture and our fishermen. This report lays down the principle of stricter controls on catches, without adversely affecting small-scale fishermen. We can therefore see that it protects both our resources and our jobs.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The objective of this proposal is to establish a multiannual plan for the management of the fisheries on the salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea to ensure that the conservation status of the entire Baltic stock is favourable and provides for sustainable exploitation. The specific objectives therefore include the need to guarantee that the Baltic salmon stock is exploited sustainably and to safeguard the genetic integrity and diversity of the Baltic salmon stock. As a result, I can only support these measures, which aim to ensure sustainable Baltic salmon stocks.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The sustainable management of fishery resources is an issue that concerns responsible citizens, environmental organisations and all stakeholders in this sector. Unfortunately, and despite its highly laudable objectives, the fact is that the common fisheries policy (CFP) has not had the desired effect, with negative repercussions on both fishing communities and resources. This report by Marek Józef Gróbarczyk concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock. It notes a significant reduction in the salmon stock, which is due, firstly, to the lack of a multiannual plan for sustainable management and, secondly, to increasing unregulated catches by recreational fisheries, which are frequently assuming professional proportions. I voted in favour of this proposal for a regulation because we urgently need measures to protect and safeguard this species by removing predators (responsible for 20 % of catches), protecting resources and creating the conditions for economic exploitation by everyone dependent on this sector.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report is based on the Commission proposal, which aims to establish a multiannual plan for the management of the fisheries on the salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea to ensure that the conservation status of the entire Baltic stock, including all salmon rivers’ stocks, is favourable and provides for sustainable exploitation. The proposal’s main objectives are that the salmon stock is exploited according to the principle of maximum sustainable yield and that the genetic integrity and diversity of the Baltic salmon stock is safeguarded. Most of the report’s amendments aim to further restrict salmon fishing, for example by prohibiting fishing with drift longliners. Bearing in mind the specific characteristics of recreational fishing – which is one of the activities with an important impact on the level of the Baltic salmon stock, although this impact is not properly assessed owing to the lack of adequate controls and the fact that Member States do not carry out their obligation to provide the relevant information – a specific framework to improve control is proposed. We supported this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) In 2010, the action plan for salmon came to an end. It had been adopted in 1997 by the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission. The contracting parties to the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) have urged the EU to draw up a long-term plan to manage the breeding of the common salmon. The objective of Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for European Union action in the field of water policy is to protect, preserve and improve the aquatic environment in which the salmon spends part of its life-cycle. The multiannual plan for the common salmon population in the Baltic Sea should contribute to achieving the objectives of the above mentioned Directive. Essential measures, such as the management of river basins should not be duplicated in this regulation, but it is necessary to coordinate and unify the measures adopted pursuant to this regulation and the measures pursuant to the above mentioned Directive for the protection and improvement of the salmon biotope in inland waters. Scientific recommendations lead one to believe that genetic contamination of the common salmon population may lead to a fall in the survival and incidence of the original population and impairment of the genetic ability to overcome disease and changes in local and environmental conditions. Since protection of the genetic integrity and diversity of the common salmon population plays a vital role in its preservation, I am convinced that it should form part of the multiannual plan as one of its objectives.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) This report was drawn up only after wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders and aims to lay down clear and specific rules to unify the principles applying to the management and control of recreational fishing. For these reasons, I voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because the multiannual plan for conserving Baltic salmon is a vital part of the management of marine resources in the context of the common fisheries policy reform. Salmon spawn, or used to spawn, in a great many rivers around the Baltic, each with its own unique genetic population. Over the years, many of these spawning populations have decreased dramatically or even become extinct. Pollution, habitat destruction, hydro-electric dams and other man-made problems have been responsible for declines in population abundance. It is therefore necessary to ensure proper conservation of salmon stocks and fisheries management and to lay down clear rules to unify the principles applying to the management and control of recreational fishing. Only recreational fishing exercised in the proper manner will make a significant contribution to the development of alternative forms of fishery, leading to sustainable growth in regions dependent on fisheries.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) As representatives of European society, it is our duty once again to call for rationalisation of fisheries policy. The predictions regarding future stocks are alarming. If we retain the current fishing policy there is a danger that certain fish species will be totally extinct within a few decades. As individuals who value the diversity of nature, who are concerned about the success of Europe’s economy and about the well-being of future generations, as informed consumers who make wise choices in their daily shopping, we must appeal for common sense. Nature’s bounty is not infinite, which is why it is so important to ensure that it is exploited sustainably. Attention should be paid to recreational fishing methods. Such fishing is not controlled and contributes significantly to the reduction of the salmon population. It is also necessary to introduce more detailed and regular checks on landings, because many irregularities occur at that stage too.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of this report is to establish a multiannual plan for the management of fisheries exploiting salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea. This will make it possible to preserve the status of the Baltic stock, as well as that of river salmon, and to ensure sustainable exploitation. The initiative therefore aims specifically to ensure sustainable fishing of Baltic salmon, but also to ensure that the genetic integrity and diversity of the stock are preserved. I voted for this report because I am conscious that fishery management is an important factor in ensuring the sustainability of marine resources.

  Isabella Lövin and Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) I voted in favour of Mr Gróbarczyk’s report on a management plan for salmon in the Baltic Sea, since it contains some very important elements that will improve the situation for wild salmon, for example, phasing out the release of farmed salmon, and reporting requirements for subsistence and recreational fishing too. On the other hand, we failed to garner political support for phasing out all sea fishing of salmon, and to introduce minimum Community dimensions for salmon and salmon trout, which would have reduced the risks of false reporting and cheating. I do, however, feel that Mr Gróbarczyk’s report is a very big step forwards in comparison with the current situation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − In its proposal for a regulation on the Baltic salmon stock, the Commission delegates to the Member States powers to regulate certain areas which are regarded as falling within the exclusive competence of the Union (conservation of marine resources).

In so doing the Commission gives its support for regionalisation and decentralisation of management in the area of EU fisheries policy. It retains, nevertheless, the right to intervene should a Member State not comply with the requirements laid down in the regulation, which are designed to lead to the re-establishment of the Baltic salmon stock.

Delegated acts should be considered a positive element in the unification of the CFP, which, in the context of this regulation, enables the Commission to improve controls and delegate powers to the relevant Member States more effectively.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour the regulation establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock. In order to limit exploitation of salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea, a management plan is necessary to promote sustainable exploitation and genetic diversity. Various measures should thus allow us to maintain a sufficient reproduction rate.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Multiannual plans are a fundamental fisheries conservation tool used by the EU and they have been blocked within the Council for two years. I disagree with the blockage and I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) As we all know very well, the Baltic Sea is one of the most sensitive seas in the EU. This is not only true for the water quality and pollution but also for the protection of biological resources, and specifically salmon stocks. Unfortunately, current management of stocks does not fully guarantee their recovery. I therefore welcome the provision that the EU approach to fishing and fish stock management must be based above all on scientific data on the recovery of stocks and the sustainable exploitation of these.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) Unfortunately, the Baltic salmon stock continues to decrease despite the set objective of restoring the salmon stock in the area. I agree that the impact of predators on the salmon stock should be studied; however, we should admit that human activity poses a major threat, whether it be environmental damage from hydro-electric dams or illegal fishing where salmon is reported as sea trout in the fishing records. I have always respected the major contribution of Sweden and Finland to the development of environmental protection in the Baltic Sea area and I hope that they can manage the restoration and protection of the Baltic salmon stock just as actively and seriously. I supported this report, which calls for greater monitoring of salmon catches and the implementation of the relevant recommendations by the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helcom).

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because we need to lay down clear rules to unify the principles of the management and control of recreational fishing and promote the development of alternative forms of fishery. In all cases, compromise solutions must be adopted for the effective management of Baltic salmon stocks. Furthermore, it is very important for scientific research to be carried out in this field on a constant basis and for a full control mechanism to be established. I believe that the proposal to limit stocking must be assessed very carefully and comprehensive studies must be carried out because its adoption may have negative consequences and reduce salmon stocks even further.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − The report on Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock makes significant changes to the management of salmon fisheries in the Baltic Sea area and it urges the Member States to exploit the stock sustainably and to safeguard its genetic integrity and diversity.

I support this report because it says that ecological recovery of salmon and environmental needs have to be balanced with economical aspects. Necessary management measures should be introduced so that the Baltic salmon fishery continues to provide jobs and income in the fishery’s regions for years to come.

Reduction of catches should be negotiated and agreed with fishers to increase the chances of its successful implementation. In order to achieve ethical and sustainable fisheries, the trust and communication methods between the stakeholders should be improved.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report concerns the multiannual plan to protect Baltic salmon, which is an important element for managing marine resources in the context of the current reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP). The report took a comprehensive approach, by engaging in wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders, including fishermen, anglers, non-governmental organisations, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), regional advisory bodies, the Committee of the Regions, and government and local authority representatives from the various countries involved. Among other issues, this report tackled monitoring of catches, species reproduction and the impact of predators on Baltic salmon stocks. I voted in favour of this report as I consider that it is an important tool for improving the regulation, management, conservation and sustainable exploitation of this fishery resource, which are absolutely essential conditions for the recovery of Baltic salmon stocks.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal aims to establish a multiannual plan for the management of the fisheries on the salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea to ensure the conservation status of these marine resources in the context of the common fisheries policy. To ensure that this status is favourable, this proposal for a regulation must be adopted as it will guide the Member States towards sustainable exploitation, through obligations to define and implement conservation measures ensuring: (a) that the salmon stock is exploited based on the principle of maximum sustainable yield, and (b) that the genetic integrity and diversity of the stock is safeguarded.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. − (FI) I voted in favour of this report. The situation with regard to salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea is very worrying. In recent years, salmon stocks have been found to be falling sharply. One of the reasons for falling stocks is over-fishing of salmon. In order for salmon protection to be effective, recreational fishing should also fall within the scope of regulation. The aim of the multiannual management plan is not to prevent fishing but rather to enable fishing in the future too. Preserving fish stocks and sustainable fishing are ultimately the responsibility of all of us.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Salmon in the Baltic Sea are doing poorly, for many reasons. Salmon is not entirely a competence of the EU, since its spawning areas are the rivers and streams of the MS, but several EU management measures exist - total allowable catches for Sea fishing, minimum landing sizes, closed seasons, etc. There is also a ban on the use of driftnets to catch salmon. The COM has proposed an EU-wide management plan, which by and large we welcomed. Both in ENVI (Carl Schlyter opinion) and in FISH we tried to strengthen the proposal, by phasing out fishing on the Sea, introducing a larger minimum landing size for both salmon and trout (to prevent mis-reporting), increasing the objectives for natural spawning of salmon in wild rivers, etc. A number of our main proposals were accepted (more in ENVI than in FISH, of course) but we lost on the phasing out of fishing on the Sea itself and the common minimum landing size for salmon and trout. We were successful in improving the scope of the plan to include recreational fishing, a major part of the fishing mortality that until now has not been regulated (at EU level).

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. − (LV) The European Parliament has endorsed a new regulation establishing a multiannual plan for the protection of Baltic salmon stocks. The Baltic salmon is a species of European interest whose stocks are dwindling rapidly, and thus it is very important to draw up a multiannual plan to provide a sustainable fisheries policy and to guarantee long-term stability for European fishermen.

However, amendments have been tabled to the regulation, such as a ban on carrying out artificial reproduction outside wild salmon rivers, strict rules on and control of recreational fishing, an over-ambitious and unattainable target for fish fry production, and principles which differ from the common fisheries policy. These arguments are sufficiently strong to prevent me from supporting this regulation overall.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) I voted in favour of Mr Gróbarczyk’s report on a management plan for salmon in the Baltic Sea, since it contains some very important elements that will improve the situation for wild salmon, for example phasing out the release of farmed salmon, and reporting requirements for subsistence and recreational fishing too. On the other hand, we failed to garner political support for phasing out all sea fishing of salmon, and to introduce minimum Community dimensions for salmon and salmon trout, which would have reduced the risks of false reporting and cheating. I do, however, feel that Mr Gróbarczyk’s report is a very big step forwards in comparison with the current situation.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I believe that the proposal for a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock will bring improved management of Baltic salmon fishing. Amendments are made to strengthen controls, in particular by expanding reporting requirements and imposing a minimum landing size of 65 cm for both salmon and sea trout. These measures are aimed at protecting spawning populations that have decreased dramatically in relative terms. Particular attention must be paid to recreational fishing, which should be adequately controlled in order to reduce the important impact it has on the level of the Baltic salmon stock. I believe that urgent action is required to halt the sharp increase in unreported catches. I voted in favour in order to help to promote the culture of sustainable fishery, based on new, clear and transparent rules.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The objective of this proposal is to establish a multiannual plan for the management of the fisheries on the salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea to ensure the conservation status of the stock and sustainable exploitation in the sector. The proposal therefore contains measures such as the obligation for Member States to define and implement technical conservation measures, and financial assistance from the European Fisheries Fund for direct restocking to achieve the defined objectives. For those reasons, I voted in favour of the document.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted for the report on the Baltic Sea salmon stocks and fisheries. Based on the latest scientific reports, inadequate stock renewal procedures could have a significant impact on the genetic diversity of the Baltic Sea salmon population. There is a high risk that the large number of farmed fish released annually in the Baltic Sea could affect the genetic integrity of the wild salmon population. I believe that fish stock renewal must be tightly regulated. The conditions governing the sourcing of genetic material for salmon reproduction and the stock renewal procedures could be specified in the multiannual plan so that stock renewal does not have a negative impact on genetic biodiversity. The Commission should ensure that Member States put in place administrative and criminal procedures to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. I call on the Member States concerned to provide and publish data accounts of returning female salmon to their rivers.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has been charged with drafting four reports that strengthen the extent to which sustainable development is taken into consideration in the common fisheries policy. I therefore voted in favour of all four reports, with some qualifications. The Gróbarczyk report notes a general lack of data and therefore of scientific knowledge about the extent of recreational fishing and its impact on Baltic salmon stocks in the different countries. It aims to present clear rules in order to harmonise the management and control principles concerning recreational fishing. This type of fishing, when done properly, can make a major contribution to the development of alternative forms of fishing, leading to sustainable growth in regions that depend on fishing. In particular, it proposes that at least 50 % of landings in each Member State should be subject to inspection.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) Despite the lack of data in some areas to which the report itself refers, which is clearly problematical, this report provides a very accurate reflection of the situation. Wide-ranging consultations between various agencies and stakeholders/interested parties and the depiction of the consensus that is needed between the Regional Advisory Council and the Commission should be viewed very positively. In order to safeguard sustainable fisheries and protect salmon stocks in the Baltic, it is essential to introduce appropriate measures, such as prior notification, in order to take account of and control recreational fishing as well.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The multiannual plan to protect the Baltic salmon is an essential instrument for managing fish stocks within the framework of the reform of the common fisheries policy. Mr Gróbarczyk’s report examines various aspects of protection of the Baltic salmon, including reproduction, recreational fishing, artisanal fishing, controls on catches and the impact of predators. In its proposal for a regulation on the Baltic salmon stock, the Commission delegates to the Member States powers to regulate certain areas that are regarded as falling within the exclusive competence of the Union (conservation of marine resources). In so doing, the Commission gives its support for regionalisation and decentralisation of management in the area of EU fisheries policy.

Report: Jörg Leichtfried (A7-0096/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report but I would suggest that the two legislative packages Omnibus I and Omnibus II should have a joint approach. While the first focuses on changing procedures for the implementation of acts, Omnibus II concentrates on the legislation adopted under the regime of delegated acts. In addition, I am in favour of the proposal to limit the delegation of power to a period of five years, with the basic aim being to increase the European Parliament’s powers. In a regime where the Commission still has many powers, I consider it essential to reinforce the European Parliament’s powers, giving it an advantage in negotiations, which it can use to obtain every possible benefit from the Treaty on European Union, given that the latter provides for Parliament’s reinforcement.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this purely procedural text, like the vast majority of my fellow Members of the European Parliament. This report accompanies the ‘Omnibus I’ proposal presented by the Commission on 7 March 2011. Whereas Omnibus I concerns the alignment of implementing measures which are not part of the ‘comitology’ procedure, this proposal, named ‘Omnibus II’, aims to bring all of the other decision-making procedures that exist in trade policy legislation into line with the regime of delegated acts or implementing acts.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support Mr Leichtfried’s report on a package of 10 existing trade policy regulations that need to be brought into line with primary law provisions on delegated acts and implementing powers. I think that it is important to underline that this report allows increased parliamentary control, limiting the delegation of powers to the Commission to a period of five years, and obliging the Commission to draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later then nine months before the end of this period.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because this proposal is aimed at aligning 10 regulations in the field of trade policy with the new provisions of primary law under the Treaty of Lisbon. More specifically, it is aimed at aligning the regulations with the provisions of Article 290, under which delegated acts are included in European Union law for the first time. This article allows the legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act. In this case, I believe that it is necessary to amend the recitals of the basic acts in order to explain the use of delegated acts and to precisely define the objective, content and scope of the delegation. It would also be useful to ensure that Parliament experts have the opportunity to participate in meetings of experts organised by the Commission before preparing and implementing delegated acts.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the amendment of certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures. The aim of this change is to finalise Omnibus II and to bring all of the other decision-making procedures that exist in trade policy legislation into line with the regime of delegated acts or implementing acts.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report is based on changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon (Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and aims at enabling the European Parliament, as a directly elected representative of the EU citizens, to bring into full effect its newly acquired powers and to carry out proper parliamentary control of the executive, while at the same time enabling flexible, timely and predictable implementation of the common commercial policy. I voted in favour of this report as I agree with its grounds and direction.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal accompanies the Omnibus I proposal presented on 7 March 2011 by the Commission. Whereas Omnibus I serves to align those implementing measures not included in the comitology regime, this proposal seeks to adapt all remaining decision-making procedures found in trade policy legislation to the regime for delegated acts. In principle these are procedures based on Council Decision 1999/468/EC. This involves adapting existing legislation to the legal framework resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Mr Leichtfried’s report concerns a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures. When the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, an important step was taken in terms of increasing the European Parliament’s responsibility, by giving it a codecision role on many subjects, including the European Union’s trade policy. In order to streamline procedures, delegated powers need to be given to the Commission so that the latter can adopt certain measures. This delegation will be for a period of five years, with the Commission being under an obligation to report on the implementation of all of these acts, for which the authorisations may be changed at any time by the delegating authority: the Council or the European Parliament. I voted in favour of this proposal for a regulation as I consider that adopting the acts recommended therein is the best way of streamlining procedures, which will certainly contribute to economic growth and job creation in the European Union.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report follows on from the Trade Omnibus I proposal. The objective is to adapt the remaining regulations on the common commercial policy (CCP) to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that is, to the regime for delegated acts. However, we must examine this report in terms of its deeper significance, bearing in mind positions of principle on the Treaty and on its provisions regarding trade policy: namely, the European Union’s exclusive competence. The definition of trade partners and objectives that should guide trade is an important instrument of economic sovereignty. Removing this instrument has resulted, for Portugal, in serious harm to many economic sectors and to the country as a whole. Trade policy has come to be guided by the maximisation of profit for the large economic groups in the EU’s major powers, clearly to the detriment of countries such as Portugal and to weaker economic sectors, which have been exposed to fierce and destructive competition. Free trade has been one of the CCP’s main instruments, which has sent this policy towards a logic of capitalist competition, instead of complementarity and mutual benefit. Our deep disagreement with the CCP is one element that we must take into account when examining this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Certain basic regulations relating to the common commercial policy state that decisions are to be taken on the basis of the procedures laid down in Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. In order to ensure consistency with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is necessary to carry out a review of the legislation in force, which was not adapted to the regulatory process prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In certain cases, it is appropriate to amend such legislation so as to grant the Commission delegated powers pursuant to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Trade Omnibus II examines all remaining decision-making procedures found in trade policy legislation in order to adapt them, where appropriate, to the regime for delegated acts set down in Article 290. In principle, these are decision-making procedures based on Council Decision 1999/468/EC. I consider the Commission proposal that certain procedures be converted into delegated acts to be justifiable. It is important to enable the European Parliament, as a directly elected representative of the EU citizens, to bring into full effect its newly acquired powers and to carry out proper parliamentary control of the executive while at the same time enabling flexible, timely and predictable implementation of the common commercial policy.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The measures contained in the Trade Omnibus II package need to be brought into line with primary-law provisions on acts delegated to the Commission. Considering that the delegated acts and implementing acts play an important role in trade policy, the solution proposed by the report seems both acceptable and responsible. Limiting the conferral of powers on the Commission to a period of five years allows greater parliamentary control, while tacit extension of the delegation of power streamlines procedures and facilitates the implementation of the common commercial policy. For these reasons I voted in favour.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The common commercial policy is one of the pillars of the European Union’s foreign relations. The role of the EU in the process of globalisation has developed considerably through its efforts to foster harmonious global trade and promote fair and sustainable behaviour. The Leichtfried report aims at enabling the European Parliament, as the directly elected representative of the EU citizens, to bring into full effect its newly acquired powers and to carry out proper parliamentary control of the executive while at the same time enabling flexible, timely and predictable implementation of the common commercial policy. I voted in favour of this report, as I believe the proposals and conclusions it contains are valid. The rapporteur has done an excellent job.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal. The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures (Trade Omnibus II) is intended to bring 10 trade policy regulations into line with the new primary law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. More specifically, it is aimed at aligning regulations with the provisions of Article 290 under which delegated acts are included in European Union law for the first time. This Article allows the legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act. The legislator retains the power to revoke the delegation at any time and thus take the relevant decision itself. In addition, any decision taken in the form of a delegated act may be vetoed by the legislator. It is sufficient for either the Council or Parliament to object to a draft delegated act proposed by the Commission.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) This proposal amends certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy with regard to the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of the Trade Omnibus II measures. It is intended to bring 10 trade policy regulations into line with the new primary law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and for the first time introduces delegated acts into European law. I also agree that the European Parliament should have the role of limiting and defining the delegated acts.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures (‘Trade Omnibus II’) is intended to bring 10 trade policy regulations in line with the new primary-law provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. More specifically, it serves to align the regulations to Article 290 which for the first time introduces delegated acts into European law. It gives the legislator the possibility to delegate on the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. The legislator retains the power to revoke the delegation at any time and thus take the relevant decision itself. In addition, any decision taken in the form of a delegated act may be vetoed by the legislator, it is sufficient for either the Council or Parliament to object to a draft delegated act proposed by the Commission.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures. The aim is to bring all of the other decision-making procedures that exist in trade policy legislation into line with the regime of delegated acts or implementing acts.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. This report allows the European Parliament, as the democratically elected body of the EU, to bring into full effect its newly acquired powers and to carry out proper parliamentary control of the executive, while at the same time enabling flexible, timely and predictable implementation of the common commercial policy.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Article 290 and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty replace the old comitology procedure with a hybrid system of delegated acts and implementing acts. As existing pieces of legislation related to the EU’s commercial policy need to be aligned to this new system of delegated acts and implementing acts, I voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because the implementation of the regulation’s provisions will facilitate the implementation of the common commercial policy. I believe that it would be appropriate to convert certain procedures into procedures for the adoption of delegated acts. It should be noted that it is necessary to clearly establish the use of delegated acts and to precisely define the objective, content and scope of the delegation in order to avoid legal loopholes and improper interpretation. I welcome the proposal which, in order to achieve more effective parliamentary control, offers to limit the period when powers are conferred on the Commission.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This draft European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures is based on changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon (Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), and systematically incorporates those changes into the secondary law in the area of the common commercial policy. This report aims at enabling the European Parliament, as a directly elected representative of the EU citizens, to bring into full effect its newly acquired powers and to carry out proper parliamentary control of the executive, while at the same time enabling flexible, timely and predictable implementation of the common commercial policy.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council aims to bring 10 trade policy regulations into line with the new primary-law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, thereby amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures (Omnibus I). I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Greens support the unity of the political forces of Parliament, vis-à-vis the reluctance of Council to live up to the Lisbon Treaty. We had differences with regard to the Omnibus-I, relating to the procedures for Anti-Dumping cases that we wanted to be better controlled by Parliament. This made us to abstain in the final vote on Omnibus-I. Regarding Omnibus-II, we are somewhat unhappy with the treatment of GSP as mostly in the reign of Implementing Acts. However, given the need to send a clear sign to Council that we want them to finally deal with the issue, Greens should vote in favour of the Omnibus-II report of Parliament.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) This proposal will allow certain trade policy regulations to be brought into line with the new primary-law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. In this regard, I believe that the confirmation of the regime for delegated acts provided for in Article 290 is particularly important. It gives the legislator the possibility to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. The legislator retains the power to revoke the delegation at any time and thus take the relevant decision itself. This is in order to strengthen the role of Parliament as a directly elected representative of the EU citizens. I hope that a new common commercial policy will be implemented and that Parliament will be enabled to bring into full effect its newly-acquired power.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In June 2011 the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy, particularly as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures. I support this report, which aims to adapt the regulations to the provisions of Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the introduction of delegated acts into European law. The report aims at enabling the European Parliament, as a directly elected representative of the EU citizens, to bring into full effect its newly-acquired powers and to carry out proper parliamentary control of the executive.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. −(RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation concerning the implementation of delegated acts for the common commercial policy. The proposal seeks to adapt a number of trade policy regulations to the new primary law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. It proposes aligning the regulations with Article 290, which is the first to introduce delegated acts in European law. Pursuant to Article 290, the legislator may delegate to the Commission the task of supplementing or amending certain non-essential parts of regulation acts. The delegation of powers may be revoked by the legislator at any time, and the legislator can then adopt a decision. Moreover, all of the decisions pursuant to a delegated act can be vetoed by the legislator. The Council or the European Parliament may thus oppose any proposed delegated act. The European Parliament’s proposal limits the delegation of powers to the Commission to a period of five years. The Commission must report on the delegation of powers at least nine months before the end of that period.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) In the interests of productive cooperation and transparency in the working relationship between the Commission and the Council, I support the proposals made by the rapporteur. Precisely defining the objective, content and scope of delegated acts is a sensible measure, as is the possibility for Parliament’s experts to attend expert meetings organised by the Commission. I also support the proposal to impose a limit in time on the conferral of powers on the Commission in order to bring about more parliamentary control while ensuring that the Commission has sufficient time to carry out its work in respect of the Common commercial policy.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Mr Leichtfried’s report aims to bring regulations regarding trade policy dating from before the Treaty of Lisbon into line with the new regime of the delegated acts or implementing acts. I voted in favour because I consider it to be right that the European Parliament, as the directly elected representative of EU citizens should bring into full effect its newly acquired powers and carry out proper parliamentary control of the executive, while at the same time enabling flexible, timely and predictable implementation of the common commercial policy.

Report: Pat the Cope Gallagher (A7-0342/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report because it avoids a vacuum in this highly sensitive matter. These measures are designed to maintain sustainable fisheries, which is important for both fishermen and the environment. Naturally, these measures will have to be adopted based on full recognition of regional characteristics, which goes against the principles of the new common fisheries policy.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text adopted by the European Parliament on the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures. It aims to make permanent the technical measures adopted on a provisional basis. It is essential to ensure better visibility for this sector, with stable, lasting rules. Such is the aim of this text.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal to amend the Regulation concerning the conservation of fishery resources. The proposal aims to extend the validity of the rules on technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms until a regionalised framework for technical measures is adopted in accordance with the common fisheries policy. These measures lay down rules on minimum landing sizes, minimum net mesh sizes, closed seasons, and so on. Even if these measures only expired temporarily, it would be detrimental to the conservation of fish stocks. I welcome the proposals set out on the preparation of measures taking into account scientific recommendations in order to ensure the safety of fishermen and stop unsustainable fishing practices. I agree that the regional approach should be followed when drawing up these measures, that is to say, measures must be prepared for specific cases and zones, not laid down as general rules for all Member States.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because it is necessary to extend the application of these transitional technical measures in order to adopt a regional technical conservation framework for the common fisheries policy.

I agree with the proposal on transitional technical measures, and I believe that the European Parliament and the Council must reach a political agreement in relation to the complexity of the common fisheries policy. It is important that European fishermen have a clear and detailed legal framework for their field of activity. I welcome the report’s proposal to extend the application of and update the existing technical measures. I believe that the adoption of this report and that a future regional regulatory framework will guarantee sustainable fishing.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Technical conservation measures are rules that our fishermen throughout the European Union must follow on a daily basis when undertaking a fishing expedition, in order to ensure that how and where fishing activity is carried out is done so in a sustainable manner. These measures relate to minimum landing sizes, minimum net mesh sizes, zones and closed seasons, limiting by-catch, the criteria to use more selective fishing gear, and measures designed to protect the marine environment. They thus have a considerable impact in achieving the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP). This report fully recognises the need for these measures, which are designed to ensure that fish stocks are fished in a sustainable manner and that the ecosystems in which they live are maintained. For those reasons, I supported this report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the technical conservation measures for fishery resources play a major role in the annual decisions on catch possibilities. More specifically, these conservation measures are rules that fishermen must follow on a daily basis when fishing. The measures relate to minimum landing sizes, minimum net mesh sizes, zones and closed seasons, limiting by-catch, the criteria to use more selective fishing gears and measures designed to protect the marine environment and have thus a considerable impact on achieving the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP). Besides the extension of validity of the current technical measures, the proposed text contains an update on existing measures on the basis of advice by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and recommendations by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission as well as measures to reduce discards in the North-east Atlantic as agreed with Norway and the Faroe Islands in 2010 which had not yet been transposed into EU law. It is unfortunate that instead of a permanent solution being found in time, Parliament is being presented with yet another proposal on transitional technical measures. European fishermen need legal clarity and the word ‘temporarily’ should not lead ad absurdum.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) For the European Union, and particularly for a country like Portugal with a maritime history and an extensive fishing and processing industry, it is vital that fishing is maintained as a viable and sustainable economic activity. Portugal needs fishing and, as such, needs the sea to maintain its capacity to give us fish and the reproductive capacity and genetic integrity of species to remain intact. That is why I believe it is vital that every single approach under the common fisheries policy always takes account of the dual need to maintain fishery stocks and to protect economic activities associated with fishing.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Technical measures lay down the rules on fishing zones and fishing gear used, as opposed to quantities (fishing effort) and/or catches (total allowable catches and quotas) authorised. This Commission proposal aims to extend the rules on technical measures for yet another transitional period until a regionalised framework for technical measures in accordance with the common fisheries policy has been adopted. The previous regulation included a measure prohibiting fishing with trammel nets in waters deeper than 200 m, which was highly prejudicial to and discriminated against the Portuguese fleet, which used to fish for anglerfish to a depth of approximately 400 m. This measure lacked any scientific basis. We welcome the rapporteur’s readiness to accept the amendment that we tabled on the use of trammel nets in ICES Subarea IX under certain conditions, in an attempt to end this discrimination. In the end, the rapporteur chose to not vote for the report as amended (but to vote for the amendments only), bearing in mind the objective of putting pressure on the Council to alter its position on the multiannual plans and on the repeated attempts to reduce Parliament’s powers in this area.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) In 2008, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council regulation for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures to replace Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms and provide for a permanent technical measures framework temporarily established in an annual regulation on catch quantities. In view of the fact that no political agreement was reached, however, this proposal was withdrawn in October 2010. The technical measures laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 are important for the sustainability of fisheries and they must be maintained. Even a temporary repeal of these measures would have negative consequences as regards the protection of the stocks to which the measures relate and the ecosystem of vulnerable deep-sea biotopes and marine birds. It is also necessary to update the existing measures in Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 in accordance with the recommendations adopted by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and to include certain technical measures to reduce discards of deep-sea species in the North-East Atlantic as agreed with Norway and the Faroe Islands in 2010, which have yet to be transposed into EU law. I agree that it is appropriate to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 to include the appropriate technical measures.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because I agree that measures are needed to ensure that fish stocks are fished in a sustainable manner and the ecosystems in which they live are maintained. Furthermore, these measures must be formulated and designed with the evolving nature of fisheries management and scientific advice in mind. Poorly conceived or inappropriate technical measures can result in unsustainable fishing practices and in certain circumstances can endanger the lives and safety of fishermen, which is totally unacceptable.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported postponing the vote on the draft legislative resolution. It is unfortunate that Parliament is presented with yet another proposal on transitional technical measures rather than a permanent solution being found in due time. The European fishermen need legal clarity and the word ‘temporarily’ should not be lead ad absurdum.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The common fisheries policy lays down rules designed to promote the conservation of resources, and in particular organisms that have not reached adult size. The positive results observed after the adoption of local technical measures based on scientific advice justify the extension of these rules and their adjustment to reflect realities linked to climate change and changes in certain species. This is what this text proposes. I vote in favour.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report, because it represents progress with regard to the conservation of fishery resources in the European Union. The report seeks to amend existing legislation to include new sea regions previously outside its scope by defining conservation areas and their species in more specific terms. The report extends the crackdown on the fishing of organisms classed as undersized so as not to jeopardise the reproduction of the species. It contains numerous changes with regard to the authorisation of fishing techniques for various species, permitting those methods which do not endanger juvenile marine organisms and do not deplete stocks. I voted in favour of this report, because it supports the introduction of technical improvements that will aid the conservation of fishery resources in Europe.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is an urgent and important legislative proposal to be adopted by the plenary in order to avoid a legal vacuum on this highly sensitive issue. Shellfish must be protected, preserved and eaten. I am in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution. It is very important to ensure that fish stocks are fished sustainably and ecosystems are preserved. It should be noted that the CFP will not enter into force until next year. Therefore on the basis of the transition regulation and for legal clarity it is appropriate to extend the validity of the rules on technical measures. It must be stressed that technical measures based on scientific research are a guarantee of sustainable fishing and proper protection for fishermen, therefore their continuous application must be ensured. On the other hand, they cannot be seen as general rules and, on the basis of the regional approach, must only be intended for specific cases and set zones.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Technical conservation measures for fishery resources define rules on fishing zones and fishing gear and are among the key elements of a regionalised approach to fisheries management. Overall, these measures are very important for achieving the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and encompass parameters such as zones and closed seasons, minimum net mesh sizes, limiting by-catch, minimum landing sizes, the criteria to use more selective fishing gear, and measures designed to protect the marine environment. Besides the extension of validity of the current technical measures, this report proposes updating existing measures and adopting specific measures to reduce discards. This report also includes the possibility of the Portuguese fleet resuming fishing for anglerfish using trammel nets at depths between 200 and 600 m, which therefore satisfies a request made by Portugal two years ago. Given the importance of these technical measures for conserving fishery resources, and for safeguarding the legitimate interests of the Portuguese fishing sector, I voted in favour of this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Technical conservation measures for fishery resources are key elements of a regionalised approach to fisheries management and lay down the rules on fishing zones and fishing gear used, as opposed to quantities (fishing effort) and/or catches (total allowable catches and quotas) authorised. Technical conservation measures ensure that how and where fishing activity is carried out is done so in a sustainable manner. Such measures relate to minimum landing sizes, minimum net mesh sizes, zones and closed seasons, limiting by-catch, the criteria to use more selective fishing gear, and measures designed to protect the marine environment. They thus have a considerable impact in achieving the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP). As I consider that the measures proposed in the report contribute to the sustainability of fisheries policy and to the preservation of ecosystems, I voted in favour.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) By adopting this report on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council Parliament, Parliament fully recognises the need for these measures, which are designed to ensure that fish stocks are fished in a sustainable manner and that the ecosystems in which they live are maintained. Nonetheless, these measures must be formulated and designed with the evolving nature of fisheries management and scientific advice. The importance of accurate formulation is also evident from the fact that poorly conceived or inappropriate technical measures can result in unsustainable fishing practices and in certain circumstances can endanger the lives and safety of fishermen. Finally, the report underlines that technical measures need to be carefully designed for specific cases and zones and cannot be seen as general rules applicable throughout all Member States in an equal way.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against the report. Technical measures are the detailed regulations concerning fishing activities, such things as mesh sizes in the nets, the minimum size of fish that can be brought ashore, closed areas and seasons where fishing is prohibited, etc. Most of them are collected in a few regulations limited to technical measures, but for historical reasons related to the Lisbon Treaty, there is a series of technical measures in a separate regulation that is time-limited and scheduled to expire on 31 December 2012. Since this series of technical measures has already been renewed twice, this time, the COM has decided to incorporate them into the primary regulation on technical measures (Reg. 850/1998). In its proposal, it also took the opportunity to clean up a few obsolete provisions. Unfortunately, the COM produced its proposal very late, requiring that both CSL and the EP work very fast. In favour on postponing the vote on the legislative resolution.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Sustainable fishing activities should be guaranteed through proper compliance by fishermen with technical measures aimed at conservation throughout the European Union. I believe that urgent action should be taken to extend the validity of the current rules in order to achieve the objectives of the common fisheries policy. I hope that in addition to extending the validity of the technical measures in force, a permanent solution will be found in time that can replace the current temporary regulatory situation that gives rise to repeated infringements. Clear technical measures will ensure that fish stocks are fished in a sustainable manner and the ecosystems in which they live are maintained, as well as ensuring compliance with rules necessary for protecting the lives and safety of fishermen. I am fully aware of the need for an extension and have therefore voted in favour. At the same time I would like to take the opportunity to call for a more detailed and effective regulatory framework.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Technical conservation measures for fishery resources are key elements of a regionalised approach to fisheries management. These measures are rules which fishermen must follow when undertaking a fishing expedition in order to ensure that how and where fishing activity is carried out is done so in a sustainable manner. This proposal aims to extend the application of the provisions on technical measures for yet another transitional period until a regionalised framework for technical measures in accordance with the common fisheries policy (CFP) has been adopted. As the CFP will not enter into force before the current transitional technical measures expire, the Commission proposes an interim solution by amending the basic legal act without concrete terminability. By adopting the Commission proposal, the 2009 and 2011 regulations will be repealed. Besides the extension of validity of the current technical measures, the proposed text contains an update on existing measures as well as measures to reduce discards in the North-East Atlantic, as agreed with Norway and the Faroe Islands in 2010, which have not yet been transposed into EU law. For those reasons, I voted in favour of the document.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted for the report on the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. A new technical conservation measures framework is expected as part of the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP). Given that this new framework will probably not be implemented before the end of 2012, it is appropriate to extend the application of the transitional technical measures. I would underline the importance of continuing to support the conservation and adequate management of biological marine resources. Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 must be updated to include the transitional technical.

To ensure the continuing conservation and adequate management of biological marine resources in the Black Sea, it is necessary to set the minimum landing size and the minimum mesh size of nets used to catch turbot.

An equivalent measure must be introduced for the minimum landing size for anchovies in terms of the number of fish per kilo as this would simplify work on board vessels and facilitate control measures ashore.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has been charged with drafting four reports that strengthen the extent to which sustainable development is taken into consideration in the common fisheries policy. I therefore voted in favour of all four reports, with some qualifications. The Gallagher report proposes the extension of technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in order to guarantee the way and the place in which fishing takes place is consistent with sustainable development criteria. It therefore pays particular attention to minimum landing sizes, minimum net mesh sizes, zones and closed seasons.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Technical conservation measures are rules that our fishermen throughout the European Union must follow on a daily basis when undertaking a fishing expedition in order to ensure that, where fishing activity is carried out, it is done so in a sustainable manner. The measures relate, among other things, to minimum landing sizes, minimum net mesh sizes, zones and closed seasons, limiting by-catch, criteria for using more selective fishing gear and measures designed to protect the marine environment. They therefore have a considerable impact in achieving the objectives of the common fisheries policy. Since I believe that the technical conservation measures for fishery resources are among the key elements of a regionalised approach to fisheries management, I voted in favour of Mr Gallagher’s report.

Report: Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (A7-0295/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) The practice of removing the fins from sharks and throwing the rest of the body into the sea is deplorable and, as such, must be absolutely prohibited and controlled, in parallel with the monitoring of endangered species catches. However, there is a clear difference between that practice and the practice of removing the fins from sharks on board vessels, with the carcass being retained on board in order to fully use the animal, and with the separation and freezing of the two parts – carcass and fins – which, as we know, are sent to different end markets and which, if separated after freezing, would seriously reduce the end quality and value of the products. It is clear that this procedure is justifiable only for the freezer vessel fleet and must be subject to strict traceability.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Patrão Neves since it takes a fundamental step towards ensuring better regulation of shark fishing. Unfortunately many species of shark are subject to over-fishing due to increasing demand. In order to oppose the cruel practice of ‘finning’ it is necessary to lay down precise rules to require all fishing boats to land sharks captured intact, with their fins ‘still naturally attached to the body’. Regulating shark fishing is not just a way of protecting the marine ecosystem but also of rendering the European market fair and sustainable and not based exclusively on considerations of profit.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Although the practice has been prohibited within the European Union since 2003, Spain and Portugal benefited from an exemption that allowed them to remove shark fins aboard fishing vessels. In March 2012, the European Commission asked for this exemption to be withdrawn. The European Parliament has acceded to the Commission’s request and I voted for this practice finally to be completely banned in the European Union.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on the prohibition of the practice of removing shark fins on board vessels. The practice of finning, often while the sharks are still alive, is unacceptable because not only does it threaten the sustainability of some shark species, but it also squanders a source of food. Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 provides for exemptions from the ban on removing shark fins on board for those vessels that have special fishing permits, which the Commission aims to end. I agree that because there is no data that proves that finning is actually carried out in European waters and by the European fleet, this Commission proposal contradicts the principle of taking action on the basis of scientific data. The aim should be to obtain more accurate information on this issue and I therefore welcome the proposals set out here on the obligation for vessel owners to report the total number and weight of shark species caught and the obligation to always land fins and carcasses together in the same port. I also agree that where local authorities cannot ensure due fisheries control, the vessels’ masters should to hire an independent body to carry out such control.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. −(RO) I voted against this report because I believe that, in some cases, the exemptions from Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 are acceptable. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of the practice of ‘finning’ in European waters and/or by European fleets. That is why I believe that adopting this report is contrary to the Commission’s principle of basing its political actions on scientific advice. Moreover, I believe that a quantitative analysis of the socio-economic impact is necessary in this case and is currently lacking. Consequently, as long as there is no proof that finning takes place in European waters, exemptions from the current Regulation can be allowed.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Patrão Neves on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels. With this Regulation the EU will finally ban the barbarous practice of ‘finning’. This was considered to be the only viable option both by the Commission and by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in order to preserve this species and at the same time to protect the ecosystem.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the practice of finning is unacceptable from an environmental point of view, because it threatens the sustainability of some shark species targeted by this practice, from a social and economic point of view, because it involves squandering a source of food with commercial value, and also from a moral point of view, because it shows a total disrespect for animal life. This finning should therefore be repudiated unequivocally, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that this practice is effectively banned in European waters and in the Community fleet. In spite of the lack of any evidence of finning being practised by the European fleet, the Commission has decided to present a proposal to end the derogation from the ban on removing shark fins on board Community fishing vessels, a practice which, as noted above, is currently permitted provided that special fishing permits have been issued and subject to rules laid down by the regulation. I believe that the overall proposals put forward in this draft report have the advantage of addressing positively the two concerns of the Commission (to guarantee compliance with the prohibition of finning, and to collect scientific data for good management), and the concerns of the sector (to guarantee legitimate economic and social interests) and of the NGOs (to protect shark stocks).

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels. I strongly condemn the practice of finning, which involves cutting off sharks’ fins on vessels before throwing their bodies back into the sea, and has been officially banned by the European Union since 2003. However, the complex system which permits the removal of fins within a ‘fin-to-carcass’ weight ratio of 5 % makes simple control and enforcement of the legislation impossible. With this in mind, I support the Commission’s proposal to make it mandatory to use a method whereby the fins remain attached to the carcass in order to fight effectively against finning. This will reduce the number of sharks fished and allow us to preserve an increasingly endangered species.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I share the Commission’s concerns about guaranteeing compliance with the ban on finning and collecting scientific data to ensure good management, and also because I consider that the legitimate economic and social interests of the sector and shark stocks must be protected.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, which proposes an end to the exemptions that have until now allowed some fishermen to remove sharks’ fins aboard vessels before throwing their carcasses back into the sea. These barbaric fishing techniques, prohibited in the European Union since 2003, must be banned, since they are cruel for the sharks, which are thrown back into the sea still alive, without their fins.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I agree that the derogation or exemption from the regulation prohibiting the practice of removing the fins from sharks on board vessels and then throwing the rest of the animal’s body into the sea should be ended. In my opinion, the practice of finning is unacceptable from an environmental point of view, because it threatens the sustainability of some shark species targeted by this practice, from a social and economic point of view, because it involves squandering a source of food with commercial value, and also from a moral point of view, because it shows total disregard for animal life. This practice should therefore be unequivocally repudiated, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that it is effectively banned in European waters and in the Community fleet, particularly by moving to control the prohibition on finning, in order to wipe out any suspicions.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This is one of those issues where the political decision must be based on solid science. The scientific opinion of the Portuguese marine and environmental institute (Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera – IPMA) was that the existing derogation should be maintained, that is, that it should continue to be possible to remove fins on board vessels, although subject to tighter controls, in accordance with the current legislation. The IPMA believes that adopting the Commission proposal will cause evident economic harm, which is not justifiable given the current conservation status of resources, and it provides reasons connected with the quality of the fished products (avoiding freezing, thawing and re-freezing of the material) and the damage that this proposal will cause – by jeopardising the good and cooperative relationship between researchers and the sector – to the collection of information needed so that scientists can provide the authorities with opinions to ensure effective fisheries management and thus guarantee the conservation of these resources. Our vote was based on that opinion.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels and the present proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels are both concerned with preventing and combating a practice commonly known as ‘finning’. This practice involves removing the fins from pelagic sharks, with the remaining parts of the animal’s body being thrown back into the sea. Finning is unacceptable from the environmental point of view (it threatens the sustainability of some shark species targeted by this practice), and also from the social and economic point of view (it involves squandering a source of food with commercial value) and from the moral point of view (it shows a total disrespect for animal life). I consider it essential that the practice of shark finning should be repudiated unequivocally, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that this practice is banned in European waters. It was against this background, with the express aim of preventing this practice, that the European Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on 26 June 2003, which prohibits the removal of shark fins on board vessels, as well as their retention on board and their transhipment or landing. In spite of the lack of any evidence of finning being practised by the European fleet, the Commission intends to ‘eradicate the horrendous practice of shark finning and protect sharks much better’ through appropriate regulations.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) ‘Finning’, or the common practice of removing the fins of sharks on board vessels, results in the death of between 50 million and 75 million sharks each year. This barbarous practice has continued due to the frequent use of a derogation provided for under EU legislation in 2003. Parliament has today closed this loophole by making it impossible to obtains special fishing permits.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report because I want it to be impossible to engage in the practice of cutting off sharks’ fins and throwing their bodies back into the sea. The live animal is then condemned to sink to the bottom and die. This practice is problematic environmentally (it threatens the survival of certain species), economically (it causes enormous waste of a potential food source) and morally (it causes unnecessary suffering to animals). There is no economic need for ‘finning’, as there is a market for shark bodies, which are nevertheless thrown back into the sea for lack of space. Yet the current regulations are not working correctly: many infractions have been reported. I think it is important to close the loophole in the European legislation from 2003, which allows some fishermen to continue to use this technique. This practice is difficult to detect, as the sharks’ bodies and fins may be landed separately, at different ports. It is therefore necessary to ensure that sharks are landed whole. We must make the legislation clearer and stricter, so that this practice is no longer possible.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), in writing. − (IT) ‘Finning’, or the removal the fins of sharks on board vessels, with the remaining parts of the animal’s body being thrown into the sea, has been banned in the EU since 2003. In order to put an end to this practice, it should be made mandatory for sharks to be landed with their fins still naturally attached to their body. Many fishing boats in the Mediterranean Sea practice finning since the sought-after shortfin mako and blue shark are both common, although these species might soon be listed as threatened with extinction.

Illegal fishing is on the rise in the Mediterranean, in part due to the high demand for shark fins and the prices that they command. This type of non-sustainable fishing causes serious damage to the marine ecosystem, especially in recent years in the Mediterranean, where there is evidence that a number of shark populations have been affected by the practice.

Greater cooperation is required in order to combat this illegal practice on board fishing vessels. To this end, the Member States must step up controls both at sea and in port, preventing the bodies of sharks from being thrown into the sea. Finning must be made transparent, controlled and above all regulated, so that it can be considered a sustainable and non-invasive form of fishing.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document. A Regulation officially prohibits in the European Union the harmful practice of finning, which is removing sharks’ fins on board fishing vessels before throwing the sharks’ bodies back into the sea. The Regulation makes provision, however, for recourse to exemptions for which ‘special permits’ can be obtained. These exemptions have become the rule in two Member States, Spain and Portugal. Effective control of this complicated system whereby finning on board is permitted within the limits of the 5 % fin-to-carcass weight ratio has proved impossible. It is extremely difficult to check whether this requirement is being adhered to, especially when fins and carcasses are landed in different ports. I therefore support this proposal, which is based on the naturally attached fins method. This method is the only valid way of restricting finning and ensuring that Members States are able to comply with the regulation in a simple, effective and inexpensive manner.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Patrão Neves and deplore this cruel practice against sharks. Lack of regulatory clarity has allowed some to continue the practice of removing fins on board vessels and throwing the body of the shark into the sea. Today’s vote requires sharks captured to be landed with the fins still attached to the body, so as to be able to carry out mandatory controls and discourage, through the application of severe sanctions, this barbarous practice by persons who I refuse to call ‘fishermen’, since they bring discredit on a sector that I regard as law-abiding and respectful of the marine ecosystem.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Shark finning consists in fishing sharks for the specific purpose of cutting off their fins, which are then sold on the Asian market, where they form the basis of a very popular dish. The practice was, for a long time, permitted in the European Union, and Europe accounted for 15 % of Asia’s shark fin imports. Finning was banned in the EU in 2003. However, exemptions were granted to some countries to continue to engage in this activity. The aim of this report was to allow the continuation of exemption measures. I am totally opposed to these practices and therefore voted against the report, like the majority of my colleagues. The fact that this report has not been adopted will mean that in future, sharks must be landed with their fins ‘naturally attached to the body’.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) This barbaric practice of removing the fins of sharks on board vessels and throwing their carcasses back into the water continues on a large scale across the globe and led to the dramatic decrease of the shark population. The 2003 EU Regulation allows certain Member States to issue special fishing permits authorising processing aboard vessels which means that shark fins can be removed within the finning quotas. However, in many cases, fins and carcasses were landed in different ports.

Therefore, I believe it is important that the competent authorities of the European Union increase inspections to ensure the strict application of the regulation and impose sanctions on operators that break it. In addition, I recommend that the regulation apply not only to Member States fishing vessels but also to all vessels in European Union waters.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I warmly welcome this report. The practice of finning is unacceptable from the environmental point of view, because it threatens the sustainability of some shark species targeted by this practice, from the social and economic point of view, because it involves squandering a source of food with commercial value, and also from the moral point of view, because it shows a total disrespect for animal life. The practice of finning should therefore be repudiated unequivocally and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that this practice is effectively banned in European waters and in the Community fleet.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I was unable to vote in favour of this report, even though it sets out important measures for the conservation of shark populations, as it will mean losses for the fishing sector. It is very important to conserve species such as the shark by means of sustainable fishing practices that restrict fishing activity so as to avoid causing environmental damage. However, the fishing sector has been in serious crisis for many years now, as a result of which the small-scale fishing community is in danger of disappearing in a number of Member States. The requirements this proposal for a regulation imposes will create even more losses in this sector, increasing the risk that this industry will vanish altogether, as only large vessels will be able to afford to carry the whole animal, while small vessels will be unable to meet this requirement. Although the report sets out a series of good practices for ensuring the survival of various shark species, I did not vote in favour of it because of its impact on small-scale fishermen and, consequently, on communities dependent on the fishing industry.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The S&D Group press for a complete ban on at-sea shark fin removal – all sharks landed must have their fins naturally attached – while stressing that this new rule should have no exceptions. I abstained.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this report because an amendment has been made that will bring an outright ban on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels, in other words prior to landing. This condition is necessary in order to prevent so-called ‘finning’, or the removal of the fins of sharks when they are captured, with the animal often thrown back into the sea still living, mutilated and certain to die. It is obvious that this is a barbaric practice that does not respect animal life, nature, or the environment and that it must be prevented. I would also like to draw attention to a worrying episode associated with this report, which Ms Angelilli rightly underlined: small shark toys were handed out to the Members to raise awareness on the issue of finning that were made in China did not bear the mandatory EU mark. I believe it is worth reflecting on this episode because all too often rules are introduced to protect and guarantee and are then ignored even inside the European Parliament itself.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I fully agree with this report on the removal of shark fins, and I have also received suggestions from some non-governmental organisations devoted to shark protection. I think that the simultaneous landing of shark parts is an inadequate response to the current problems, because finning could go on unnoticed even were rules on matching fins to shark bodies to be applied rigorously, which would in any case be a difficult, expensive and laborious method. Furthermore I think that the proposal to raise the fin-to-carcass weight ratio to 14 % of processed weight would result in an unprecedented slackening of controls on finning (since this limit is three times higher than that imposed by most countries who use this system). There is another problem: given the high volume of fish landed, counting fins and matching them to carcasses would complicate rather than improve application. Traceability is a much simpler matter if the attached fins rule is applied. ‘Independent’ control systems are costly and could involve the risk of inaccuracies. Claims by industrial fisheries with regard to possible economic losses are hasty and superficial, have not been subject to external checks and appear to be arbitrary and inconsistent.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) The practice of finning, which involves removing the fins from pelagic sharks, with the remaining parts of the animal’s body being thrown into the sea, where it endures a slow death on the sea floor, is causing growing mortality in shark stocks. These practices should be prohibited as a matter of principle and the closure of the legal loophole is long overdue. The time has come to introduce legislation requiring that all sharks landed by EU flagged vessels operating in EU and non-EU waters and by non-EU vessels in maritime waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Member States be landed with their fins naturally attached. I therefore especially welcome the abolition of the exemptions under the previous EU regulation, which allowed fishermen who held special permits to remove the fins from sharks on board and land the separated fins in port. There is a massive demand for shark fin because such high prices for shark fin soup can be commanded in the Asian market. This economic incentive, sadly, is causing the killing of sharks for their fins alone. Perhaps the vote of the European Parliament will help to curb this barbaric killing of sharks.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because the practice whereby shark fins are removed and the remainder of the body thrown back into the sea is unacceptable and should be prohibited. Consequently it is very important for ‘fins naturally attached’ policies, which would stop this practice of removing fins, to be properly implemented at EU level. Furthermore, a strict control mechanism should be established in order to close legal loopholes and address difficulties associated with the use of a fin to carcass ratio. Above all, we need to narrow the derogation currently applied and ensure compliance with the obligation to land fins and carcasses together in the same port. On the other hand, we have to ensure that the ban on removing fins does not have a significant impact on the profitability of businesses and crew members’ safety.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) How can we remain unmoved by the fate of sharks caught in our European waters and then thrown back into the sea, sometimes still alive, once their fins have been removed? This practice is totally unacceptable and runs counter to the sustainable and responsible management of our ecosystem. The European Commission has finally done the right thing by rejecting any possibility of exemptions in the future. To sanction such exemptions would be a considerable step backwards and would jeopardise all of the progress already made on the subject. The Patrão Neves report aims to limit the ban on shark finning to freezer vessels only, in the knowledge that the vast majority of the 200 Spanish and Portuguese vessels that already hold special permits are freezer vessels. Fortunately, the European Parliament has not yielded to the sirens from the industry and has refused to remove the substance of the Commission’s proposal, which bans all finning without any exceptions.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today in plenary we voted on the report by Ms Patrão Neves. Many species of sharks are being very heavily fished. In recent years some have been severely targeted and put under serious threat as a result of the demand for shark products, fins in particular. In 2003 a ban on the removal of shark fins on board vessels was introduced. The resolution approved today removes derogations, in other words the special permits allowing removal of fins at sea on board vessels that could demonstrate they would utilise all of the shark parts. Subsequently, fins and carcasses could be landed at different ports, making exact counting difficult and therefore also preventing detection of those who violated the ban, throwing the finless shark carcasses into the sea.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) While Europeans do not traditionally cook shark, Asians are particularly fond of eating their fins, which can sell at prices in excess of EUR 70 a kilo. The fishing of sharks, which are necessary in the sea to preserve the balance of the marine ecosystem, has been regulated, one of the main goals being the conservation of the species. However, the current rules are too easily circumvented by fishermen and shark stocks are shrinking: according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), more than 25 % of all pelagic shark species, of which over 50 % are large oceanic-pelagic sharks, are threatened. It is therefore urgent to take action to conserve this species by ensuring better compliance with the rules in force, which would also allow the European Union to meet the international commitments it has made on shark protection. This regulation, which I support, is a step in that direction.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour of the amended proposal (which is not the original defended by the rapporteur). An unequivocal EU ban on the odious and wasteful practise of shark finning will finally become reality after today’s vote. MEPs have voted to prohibit the removal of shark’s fins on board, making it mandatory to land sharks with the fins naturally attached. This will allow the EU ban to finally be implemented without exceptions. Despite EU legislation on shark finning existing since 2003, loopholes enabled this barbaric and wasteful practise to continue. Thankfully, a majority of MEPs has voted for an outright ban, and rejected attempts to preserve these loopholes. ‘Every year millions of sharks are caught, their fins hacked off and the bodies simply discarded to meet the demand for shark fin soup in Asia. This is not only a senseless waste, it also puts pressure on threatened shark species. Banning shark finning in European fisheries is an important step but the EU should also advocate for the practise to be outlawed at international level.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today’s vote has finally closed the loopholes in rules on the ‘finning’ of sharks that allowed fishermen to hide infringements. This step is particularly important for providing complete protection for this species, which plays an important role in the marine habitat and is currently threatened with extinction.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), in writing. − (ES) I am in favour of effective controls that will ensure compliance with the ban on shark finning.

I support the general consensus that the fins and bodies of sharks should be landed in the same port. However, I do not think it necessary for the fins to be landed while still attached to the bodies. The latter option, which was rejected at the recent meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, creates needless extra costs when it comes to the storage, handling, processing and prompt sale of catches, which could jeopardise the viability of a considerable segment of the sector.

I am in favour of checks in the port of landing by means of independent certification, based on criteria established by official bodies. This is a reasonable solution and one which the sector would be responsible for implementing. It would set a powerful precedent for the worldwide control of fishing activities. Only if it failed to deliver the desired results would more stringent procedures need to be applied.

On the other hand, I am pleased to note that the Ferreira report on small-scale coastal fishing and artisanal fishing and the Lövin report on the external dimension of the common fisheries policy incorporate many of the amendments I tabled.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the fact that the European Commission responded positively to Parliament’s written declaration on this issue and proposed to close the loophole in the shark finning regulation. The delicate marine eco-system is continually put at risk by overfishing, but the cruel practice of shark finning is particularly damaging because of the additional vulnerability of shark populations. I voted against those attempts by some Members to allow the loophole to remain open. The long term sustainability of the fishing sector – and with it our food security – will be ensured by effective, enforceable regulation, not laws with loopholes.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I deplore the practice of the removal of the fins of sharks and I think steps must be taken to ensure that this does not happen on board vessels. Removal of fins of sharks, or so-called ‘finning’, is already regulated under EU law, which banned the practice but provided for a derogation allowing finning on board vessels subject to special fishing permits. We should reflect on the gravity of this horrendous practice from an environmental point of view in order to protect certain animal species, but also in economic terms: since finning involves removal the fins of sharks, with the remaining parts of the animal’s body being thrown into the sea, it prevents a source of food from being placed on the market. For these reasons, I voted in favour.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) The nature of this matter and the manner in which negotiations were conducted in the Committee on Fisheries make this a difficult vote.

I voted in favour of the Commission proposal, because I am completely opposed to the practice of finning and, therefore, in favour of the full use of the shark. I supported the derogation provided for in Article 4, as I believe it be an adequate solution given the current circumstances of the sector in the Iberian Peninsula. This derogation could be maintained for a while.

Furthermore, the sector in question should produce a detailed study on the overall costs resulting from the new rules. In any case, they need to be accompanied by an effective system of controls in fishing ports that is genuinely enforced, and we must align our practices with international recommendations.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, which condemns a barbaric practice. In order to guarantee that the scandalous practice of finning by European Union vessels is brought to an end, the Commission and the Council must ensure that the exemptions to the ban on finning are removed. The Member States must also support this action and ensure that requests for the granting or renewal of special permits are carefully studied and only approved when justified, in accordance with the law.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Commission’s proposal advocates deleting the current Article 4, that is ending the derogation from the ban on removing shark fins on board Community fishing vessels, a practice which is currently permitted provided that special fishing permits have been issued and subject to rules laid down by the regulation. The rapporteur tried to maintain the derogation contrary to the Commission’s proposal. As this approach was not accepted in plenary, I voted against the final document, given that this was no longer the original version drafted by the rapporteur.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the ban on removing the fins of sharks on board vessels. This practice has been prohibited in the EU since 2003, but some shipowners benefiting from exemptions in Spain and Portugal are suspected of ‘finning’, which involves cutting off a shark’s fin and throwing its flesh back into the water. The report therefore plans to force all fishermen to wait until their vessels have landed before cutting off sharks’ fins. This debate is a perfect illustration of the need to establish a real European fisheries control policy. The practice of ‘finning’ is unacceptable, but there is no proof that it takes place in Europe. However, in view of the doubt, it was necessary to remove any possibility of the continuation of such practices. Since controls have failed, the European Parliament has been forced to eliminate all exemptions, which will not be without consequences for professionals. The challenge now is to ensure that the issue of European fisheries control is dealt with more effectively. In particular, uniformity of controls must be promoted and the resources allocated to this vital tool for our fisheries policy must be increased.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted against the report on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels. An analysis of shark catch rates indicate that stocks are under serious threat, although the situation is different for some species and even within the same species across different regions.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), more than 25 % of all species of pelagic sharks, most of which are great oceanic pelagic sharks, are under threat. In the last few years, it has been illegal to catch, retain on board, tranship or land an increasing number of shark species, including sharks with high commercial value fins, in accordance with Union legislation or other regional fisheries management regulations.

The blue and mako sharks, classified by the IUCN as ‘under threat of extinction’ and ‘vulnerable to extinction’, respectively, are the most common species caught by European vessels, with the blue shark accounting for 70 % of all sharks landed. However, other species, such as the hammer shark and the tiger shark, caught in internal and external waters of the European Union support the economic viability of the fisheries sector.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I wholeheartedly support changes to the current legislation to make sure shark finning on vessels is banned and that no exemptions for EU Member States can be granted. The legislation from 2003 was not strict enough and allowed fishermen to remove sharks’ fins whilst on vessels and then throw them back in the water to die. New legislation will mean that all sharks will have to be landed with their fins naturally attached, rather than carcasses being discarded into the sea. I welcome the move to make sure that, where local authorities are unable to carry out controls in ports, vessel owners will be responsible for hiring an independent body to do the job. This legislation bring the rest of Europe up to speed with measures already in force in the UK which put a stop to this wasteful, cruel practice.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this resolution, which aims to revise the legislation applicable to the practice of ‘finning’, the removal of sharks’ fins on fishing boats. This practice was already banned by Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 of 26 June 2003. However, Article 4 of that Regulation provided for an exception which effectively allowed finning. The new resolution puts an end to this barbaric practice, carried out for the purpose of soup production in Asia. Indeed, as the rest of the shark’s body is of lesser commercial value, the still-live shark is often thrown back into the sea, its fins amputated. Incapable of moving in order to oxygenate its gills, the shark therefore slowly asphyxiates. Today, 73 species of sharks which play a vital role in the ecosystem are endangered, as finning has led to overfishing. I am therefore glad that all of the amendments that aimed to reintroduce exemptions have been rejected, as there is now proof that they have been used to circumvent the legislation. At a time when the legislation on red tuna is demonstrating its effectiveness, it is time for everyone to adopt a responsible approach to species that are in real danger.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the strengthening of the rules on the removal of sharks’ fins on board boats. The existing rules permitted exemptions that meant that compliance with the ban on this cruel practice, which involves throwing live sharks back into the sea having removed their fins, could not be guaranteed. While sharks’ fins are the main ingredient in a highly-valued Asian soup, the rest of the meat is less sought-after. There is a great temptation to keep only the valuable part of the shark and to throw the rest of the carcass away, leading to overfishing of an animal of which many species are endangered. However, while the requirement that any fins landed must be attached to the body of the animal should facilitate controls, I remain convinced that the lack of resources allocated to these controls – concerning not only shark finning but also other species – remains the central problem with regard to overfishing, causing harm to the environment and to the overwhelming majority of fishermen, who carry out their work in a responsible and courageous way and face unfair competition that flouts all of the rules.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − I supported this report, which calls for the abolition of loopholes that allow shark finning to continue. Shark finning – the process whereby a shark’s fin is removed on board a fishing vessel and the rest of the shark discarded back into the sea – is illegal under EU law but is still allowed by vessels that have received a special permit. This proposal calls for all EU vessels, and all vessels fishing in EU waters, to be required to land sharks with their fins still attached and it is hoped that, by doing do, the number of shark catches will be reduced. Many shark species are threatened, some are close to extinction. Shark finning is not only thought to be contributing to the decline in shark numbers, it is also cruel as fins are sometimes removed while the shark is still alive. As the EU ranks second in the world for the number of shark catches, we therefore have an important role to play in helping to protect them. The EU has also legally committed to adopt measures aimed at helping to protect sharks and this proposal should go some way to achieving that.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) ‘Finning’ is unacceptable from an environmental point of view because it threatens the sustainability of some shark species targeted by this practice, from the social and economic point of view because it involves squandering a source of food with commercial value, and also from the moral point of view because it shows a total disrespect for animal life. Although finning has been banned since 2003 in European waters and by the European fleet, the Commission has decided to present a proposal aimed at ending the derogation from the ban on removing shark fins on board EU fishing vessels. The proposal will improve the protection of sharks, allowing the EU to make an active contribution to global efforts to eradicate this cruel practice in other parts of the world too.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I have been receiving information on the cruel practice of the removal of sharks’ fins for a long time now. My office has recently received a great many reports from environmental organisations and private individuals. I support their requests for this practice to cease as soon as possible, and for a ban on trading in these items, especially in South America. I am in favour.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0497/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report as I consider, first of all, that the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is of great importance, as it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside. Furthermore, recalling the role that the European Union has already acquired in terms of exclusive external competence in the field of international child abduction, I am of the opinion that the Council should therefore take steps as quickly as possible to adopt the decisions proposed by the Commission, including by consulting Parliament immediately.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Child abduction is morally reprehensible and has major consequences for the children and their families. The Hague Convention on the subject provides the legal means to fight this cross-border scourge. This text seeks to allow eight new countries to accede to this convention, and I therefore supported this resolution.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal for a resolution on the accession of eight third countries to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Hague Convention establishes a system allowing states to cooperate in cases of child abductions, it determines which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside, and also provides for the speedy return of abducted children to their country of residence. The Council has decided to delay the consultation of Parliament and the accession of these countries to the Hague Convention on legal grounds. I welcome the recommendations set out that the Council should proceed immediately with the procedure for the accession of the countries mentioned to the Hague Convention and, to that end, should consult Parliament. I agree that while defending the interests of its citizens, the Council should refrain from impeding the proper functioning of the European Union on spurious legal grounds.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is very important to establish a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions. It is necessary to determine which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside. Recommendations are currently being put before the Council that it should proceed immediately with the procedure for the adoption of the aforementioned decisions. In the interest of European citizens who would benefit from the adoption of those decisions, it should refrain from impeding the proper functioning of the European Union on spurious legal grounds.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is of great importance, because it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside.

We know that the European Union has obtained exclusive external competence in the field of international child abduction. The accession of new states (Gabon, Andorra, the Seychelles, the Russian Federation, Albania, Singapore, Morocco and Armenia) should be accepted by those states which are already members in order for the Convention to apply between them.

Given that the Convention does not allow international organisations to become members, the European Union should empower the Member States to act in its interest when accepting the abovementioned accessions. In the interest of European citizens who would benefit from the adoption of those decisions, it should renounce efforts to impede the proper functioning of the European Union on false legal grounds.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this resolution urging the Member States to sign the declaration, in the interest of the European Union, allowing the accession of eight countries to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Council should proceed immediately with the procedure for the adoption of the aforementioned proposed decisions and, within this procedure, it should consult Parliament on the eight proposed decisions.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is of great importance, as it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside. The Council is therefore urged to proceed with the procedures needed to accept the accession of eight new states to the Convention.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This motion for a resolution, tabled under Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure, further to a question for oral answer put by a group of MEPs on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, concerns the declaration of acceptance by the Member States, in the interest of the European Union, of the accession of eight third countries to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The growing Europe-wide mobility of citizens is increasing the number of relationships between people from different countries. This is therefore leading to a rise in the number of cases where couples with children are separating, with disagreements about the custody of those children. Court decisions are frequently ignored and children are being abducted by one of their parents. I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution – which has been blocked by the Council for nearly a year – because it is vital that, in such cases, the international community prioritises protecting the interests of the children, and not their parents, which does not always happen with some institutions. In the event of international abductions, external competence therefore passes to the EU.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions. This Convention only applies between countries which have ratified or acceded to it, which is why the acceptance of accessions is therefore of the utmost importance. Bearing in mind that the children’s interests are of paramount importance, and that their protection must prevail over any other interest, we consider that it is vital and urgent to establish the most effective ways of guaranteeing the immediate return of an abducted child to his or her country of habitual residence. We therefore voted in favour of this resolution.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is of great importance, as it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside. The European Union has already exercised its internal competence in the field of international child abductions, in particular by means of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility. However, the Convention does not allow international organisations to become members. For this reason, the European Union should empower the Member States to act in its interest when accepting the aforementioned accessions. The Council should therefore take steps as quickly as possible to adopt the decisions proposed by the Commission, including by consulting Parliament immediately.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In view of the growing number of international child abductions, a phenomenon that goes hand in hand with the growing number of binational marriages, I supported the European Parliament’s request for eight new third countries to be granted accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. These accessions are vital if we are to increase the likelihood of rapid positive outcomes in cases of child abduction. The Council should therefore conclude this process without delay.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is of great importance, as it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside. The Convention also provides for the speedy return of abducted children to their proper country of residence. The Convention only applies between countries which have ratified or acceded to it. The accession of new states must be accepted by those states which are already members in order for the Convention to apply between them. The European Union has already exercised its internal competence in the field of international child abductions, in particular by means of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. The Council should proceed immediately with the procedure for the adoption of the aforementioned proposed decisions. To that end, it should consult Parliament on the eight proposed decisions. In the interest of European citizens who would benefit from the adoption of those decisions, it should refrain from impeding the proper functioning of the European Union on spurious legal grounds.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The serious cases of human trafficking, including minors, demonstrate that prevention measures are slow and inefficient. It is our duty to shed light on this phenomenon again. Every minute wasted because of the lack of communication within the Council had negative consequences in horrible situations involving children. The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 helps to combat trafficking in minors by setting up an efficient system that allows the parties to cooperate on international abductions and quick repatriation. Therefore, the accession to the Convention of the eight third countries is extremely important.

In my opinion, the Council must take immediate action, and it must adopt the Commission’s proposals and stop its feeble excuses. I am in complete agreement with my colleagues who advocate the accession of the eight countries to the Convention in order to put an end to this terrible situation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this resolution which calls for the EU to sign the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It is of great importance, as it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is of great importance, as it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions. I therefore support the motion for a resolution and the requests to the Council it contains.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution, because it states, quite rightly, that the Council does not have the power to block any decisions adopted by the Commission in this regard. In all matters concerning international child abduction, the law applicable is the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Commission is attempting to ensure that all Member States comply with this agreement, so that the accession of new states can be accepted, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The Council is impeding the usual decision-making process in this regard, through which the Commission is seeking to ensure that all Member States comply with the legislation in force and to prevent any country from being denied the right to accede to the Convention. The Council likewise refuses to consult Parliament in order to make progress in this matter, citing opposition on legal grounds. I therefore voted in favour of this motion for a resolution.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution. It should be noted that the protection of children’s rights is a public interest and we therefore always need to look for the best solution on the basis on the interests of the child. Very often disputes concerning children acquire an international element and involve the problem of the illegal removal of a child to another country. Consequently we need to ensure the implementation of the provisions of this Convention internationally. The procedure for the accession of new countries cannot be delayed. We have to protect children from the harmful consequences of their illegal removal or retention. Furthermore, we need to ensure the speedy return of children to their country of residence and the proper implementation of the protection of parents’ rights to contact their child.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution on the declaration of acceptance by the Member States, in the interest of the European Union, of the accession of eight third countries to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This resolution recommends that the Council proceed immediately with the procedure for the adoption of the aforementioned proposed decisions and that, to that end, it should consult Parliament on the eight proposed decisions, in the interest of European citizens who would benefit from the adoption of those decisions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is of great importance, as it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside. The Convention thus provides for the speedy return of abducted children to their proper country of residence. The Convention only applies between countries which have ratified or acceded to it. Whereas the accession of new states must be accepted by those states which are already members in order for the Convention to apply between them. The acceptance of accessions is therefore of the utmost importance.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I think that the judicial situation regarding international child abduction urgently needs to be clarified, determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable based on the place of residence of the minor. A system must be established allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions by acceptance of accession to the Hague Convention of new states, by those states that are already members. In the firm belief that we must make protection of the rights of minors a priority, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I do, of course, support this resolution, which aims to press the Council to act more quickly to allow participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside. Provision is also made for the speedy return of abducted children to their proper country of residence. In the interests of European citizens, who would benefit from the taking of these decisions, the Council should consult Parliament as soon as possible and stop hindering the proper functioning of the European Union for spurious legal reasons!

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Given that the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is of great importance, since it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside, the European Parliament has recommended that the Council should proceed immediately with the procedure for the adoption of the proposed decisions presented on this issue by the Commission. To that end, it reminds the Council that it should consult Parliament on the proposed decisions and that, in the interest of European citizens who would benefit from the adoption of those decisions, it should refrain from impeding the proper functioning of the European Union on spurious legal grounds. For those reasons, I supported the adoption of the document.