Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

L-Erbgħa, 5 ta' Settembru 2007 - Strasburgu

15. L-applikazzjoni tal-prinċipju tas-sostenibiltà fl-industriji tas-sajd ta' l-UE permezz ta' produzzjoni massima sostenibbli (dibattitu)

  Die Präsidentin. Als nächster Punkt folgt der Bericht von Carmen Fraga Estévez im Namen des Fischereiausschusses über die Verwirklichung der Nachhaltigkeit im EU-Fischereisektor mithilfe des Konzepts des höchstmöglichen Dauerertrags (2006/2224(INI)) (A6-0298/2007).

  Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE), Ponente. – Señora Presidenta, permítame decir, en primer lugar, que, en el día de hoy, se ha producido un naufragio de un buque pesquero español frente a las costas andaluzas, en el que han fallecido tres personas y cinco se encuentran, en este momento, desaparecidas. Pido a este Parlamento que se una al dolor de las familias y al deseo del rescate de los marineros desaparecidos.

Y con esto, paso al informe que nos ocupa en el día de hoy. Lo primero que me gustaría destacar, como la propia Comisión reconoce y este Parlamento ha expresado en numerosas ocasiones, es el rotundo fracaso del sistema comunitario de gestión pesquera que, a lo largo de sus muchos años de vigencia, ni ha garantizado la sostenibilidad de los recursos, ni mucho menos, ha respaldado un sector pesquero eficiente y rentable.

Paradójicamente, el sistema de gestión es el único que no ha participado a fondo de la gran reforma del año 2002 y, por ello, la Comisión tiene que estar parcheando ahora aquí y allá, afrontando descartes insostenibles, inventando cada día medidas de control e instaurando planes de recuperación, pero sin abordar el fondo del asunto: la definición de un marco coherente y actualizado del modelo de gestión pesquera.

En este contexto, nos llega la Comunicación de la Comisión, que opta por el rendimiento máximo sostenible como punto de referencia para la explotación pesquera a largo plazo, un modelo teórico que busca compaginar la explotación más eficaz de una especie, garantizando a la vez la sostenibilidad biológica. El problema es que el rendimiento máximo sostenible —que, como concepto intelectual y teórico puede ser irreprochable— ha desvelado tener no pocas contradicciones en su aplicación práctica y, de hecho, gran parte de la comunidad científica lo considera ya ampliamente superado.

La cuestión sería, por tanto, redefinir el modelo de manera que permita adaptarlo a la realidad de las pesquerías comunitarias. Y aquí es donde se plantean una serie de interrogantes sobre cómo hacerlo, que el informe que hoy presentamos ha intentado poner de relieve y a los que, de ninguna manera, responde la Comunicación de la Comisión, muy ambigua y con una gran indefinición.

Quede claro que no estamos criticando aquí la intención de la Comisión de imponer un nuevo modelo de gestión sino su incapacidad de explicarnos cómo va a superar las dificultades de ponerlo en práctica y de salvar los escollos que el propio rendimiento máximo sostenible contiene en su propia formulación. Entre ellos, sabemos que el rendimiento máximo sostenible necesita de series largas de datos científicos fiables y precisos, mientras que, para la inmensa mayoría de las especies, tal grado de certeza no es posible.

Por otro lado, el modelo fue creado basándose en la explotación de una única población, mientras que la gran mayoría de las pesquerías comunitarias son multiespecíficas, lo que significa sobreexplotar o subexplotar a muchas de ellas, algo evidentemente contrario a la propia definición de rendimiento máximo sostenible. Tampoco sirve para las especies pelágicas, y también sabemos hoy día que, en el estado de las poblaciones, influyen otros factores, como fallos en el reclutamiento o factores ambientales, que pueden conducir a definiciones erróneas del rendimiento máximo sostenible.

Lo que sí es seguro es que una aplicación estricta del rendimiento máximo sostenible resultará, a corto plazo, en una disminución, a veces drástica, de las posibilidades de pesca y, por tanto, de la actividad, los ingresos y el empleo de la flota comunitaria.

Señora Presidenta, permítame agradecer las contribuciones de todos mis colegas y solicitar la aprobación de un informe mediante el que la Comisión de Pesca quiere pedir a la Comisión Europea que despeje primero todas estas incertidumbres antes de implantar manu militari a algunas especies de gran importancia económica la versión de un modelo cuya eficacia para muchas pesquerías está científica y económicamente en cuestión; que aborde antes seriamente un sistema de gestión pesquera claro, con un enfoque ecosistémico, y que decida entonces la adaptación de los puntos de referencia y el modelo elegido, sea basado en el RMS o en otro, y no sin antes — insisto en esto— acompañarlo de un análisis socioeconómico sobre las repercusiones de su implantación y las medidas para contrarrestar su impacto, cuestiones todas ellas que son, ahora mismo, la gran preocupación de nuestros sectores y la nuestra propia.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Madam President, first of all allow me to thank the rapporteur, Ms Fraga Estévez, and all the members of the Committee on Fisheries for a very thorough report on the implementation of sustainable fishing based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY).

I am pleased to see that we are in broad agreement, in particular on the need to move away from annual decision-making allowing for a more gradual approach and for better planning by the sector. A longer-term approach will also allow for more stability and sustainability in the exploitation of fisheries resources.

I am sure that we are in agreement on the objectives of urgently taking measures to improve the very poor state of fisheries resources in Europe in order to bring the stocks to sustainable levels, which, at the same time, will improve the profitability of the fishing industries in the long term.

Apart from the benefits to industry, there is an international political commitment that should be met. In particular I appreciate and share the Committee on Fisheries’ view that the common fisheries policy needs a new management model for the setting of fishing opportunities, the recovery of depleted stocks and the adaptation of fishing effort levels to sustainable and profitable levels.

Also, and very importantly, adjusting fishing efforts to MSY levels is the single most important action that can be taken to reduce discarding in European waters.

I am aware that there are concerns too. I share many of these concerns and know they will need to be addressed. First of all, I know that evaluating MSY is not a simple matter. There are scientific uncertainties and the matter is complicated because of eco-system effects and mixed fisheries issues.

Fisheries science is not yet able to predict accurately what MSY for any particular stock or mixture of stocks will be. But we must not only look at the difficulties. Science can tell us in which direction fisheries should move in order to improve yields and decrease costs. Even if the destination is imprecise, the direction is known quite well.

We should start to move in the right direction and progressively evaluate and review the MSY reference points as fisheries develop.

Mixed fishery situations need to be studied carefully and the best possible solutions identified in relation to the potential yield of the whole fisheries system.

This progressive approach will allow environmental, economic and social aspects to be explored. It is also the approach that has been adopted in the long-term plan for plaice and sole in the North Sea, which was adopted this year and which I consider to be a good model for the implementation of this approach. As your report stresses, it is an urgent matter to start moving in the right direction.

Let me underline here that the long-term management plans in practical terms move fisheries management in the right direction: that is, away from over-exploitation and not necessarily to a fixed MSY target.

The plans include provisions for regular revisions of the targets that allow for the adaptation of MSY targets where necessary, for example, where there is a change in the natural environment or where there is a revision of the scientific advice.

Secondly, I agree that it is important to address fisheries issues on a local basis and to involve the stakeholders in the important decisions concerning the choice of objectives, the rate at which we should move towards those objectives and the right combination of measures to take such as tax, effort management and technical adaptations.

The Commission will only prepare MSY plans on a regional basis and only after a detailed consultation with the sectors involved. The region advisory councils will play an important role here and their work has already begun. Economic and social analyses are also important in this process and the Commission will accompany all proposals for management plans with impact assessments where economic, social and environmental aspects of the proposals will be analysed.

Increased support for fisheries research is a necessary part of the development of MSY plans. The framework programmes, the work of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and the support of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea will all be important in this context, which will be a priority area for the next years.

Moving to MSY fisheries will, in many cases, mean adjustments of fleet capacity and reductions in fishing effort. The European Fisheries Fund was designed so that Member States can plan the development of the national fleet capacity and use co-funding from the Community budget to help adjust the fleet size according to long-term objectives and taking appropriate social and economic provisions into account.

I would also like to say a few words in relation to the three amendments proposed by Mr Schlyter. The Commission believes that a gradual approach to moving to MSY conditions should in fact be a general rule. There is no need in all cases to move drastically to MSY. As regards scientific methodology for reaching MSY, the Commission will ask for scientific advice on a case-by-case basis. We should not prejudice the scientific debate by prejudging which methods may be better than others.

Lastly, as I have already stated, it is correct to say that the European Fisheries Fund provides for Member States to allocate public aid so as to restructure fishing fleets in line with MSY strategies. This, however, should not be seen as compensation, because the fishing industry will be the eventual beneficiaries of the new policy but as a financial incentive to make the transition.

The Commission will continue the dialogue with the fisheries sector and will start to discuss specific long-term plans for a number of fisheries with an MSY perspective. Implementing such plans will improve the stability and the productivity of stocks and of the industry.

I look forward to more discussions with you about these plans at a later date, after the Commission has developed impact assessments, consulted the industry and prepared our proposals. There is a lot of work to be done and I will be very grateful for your support in developing this policy area.

  Avril Doyle, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, I welcome Ms Fraga Estévez’s report, and particularly her highlighting of concerns on this proposal from the Commission, as I have serious reservations about the Commissioner’s proposals to adopt a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) model as the reference point for managing fish stocks.

The year 2015 is a political date, not a scientific one. It is too early for some stocks and is too late for others in the context of overfishing. While the proposal aims to maximise the economic yield of a fishery, and also maintain the capacity of the stock to produce maximum sustainable returns in the long-term, I fear that, far from reducing the levels of discarded catch, critical flaws in the model may cause over-exploitation, as the underlying assumptions used for calculating levels of catch are based on single-species, shallow-water fisheries and do not take account of geographic and biological diversity.

I applaud the objective of increasing efficiency in protecting fish species, as all of us must do. But I believe that the Commission has not sufficiently researched this. There has been no in-depth evaluation of the risks of error in the MSY model. Moreover, for the large majority of scientists and also for the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the traditional MSY model has been superseded by new cutting-edge approaches which encompass the ecosystem as a whole, rather than relying on an outdated concept of animal population dynamics.

MSY is a blunt instrument, based on harvesting surplus production during high growth of population before it reaches carrying capacity. But it is one which can lead to overfishing when applied to multi-species fisheries, as you cannot obtain optimum levels of all species at the same time, or when it is applied to pelagic species that dwell in deep seas and open water such as the North Sea and the Atlantic.

If adopted, this model will simultaneously result in the collapse of stocks and the collapse of the market. I urge the Commissioner to take a sound, scientific and evidence-based approach. Your own words, Commissioner, are that you should not prejudice the scientific debate. I agree with you. Take a scientific, evidence-based approach and re-examine this proposal rather than – with respect – just dance, albeit belatedly, to the tune of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

  Paulo Casaca, em nome do Grupo PSE. – Srª Presidente, Sr. Comissário, Sr. Presidente da Comissão das Pescas, gostaria de começar por felicitar a nossa relatora pelo seu excelente trabalho e também felicitar a Comissão por esta sua comunicação que responde a uma exigência que ela mesmo aprovou na Cimeira Mundial de Joanesburgo de 2002 e corresponde ainda ao primeiro dos 8 objectivos que foram traçados nessa conferência. É certo que, desses 8 objectivos, há muita coisa que já foi feita pela Comissão Europeia, mas gostaria de dizer ao Sr. Comissário que estamos em 2007 com objectivos traçados para 2015 por uma Cimeira que decorreu em 2002. Estarmos nesta altura ainda a debater esta comunicação não creio que seja uma forma suficientemente rápida de responder à dimensão dos desafios que temos pela frente.

Regozijo-me com as palavras do Sr. Comissário quando ele fala na necessidade de um novo modelo de gestão, quando esta proposta frisa o conceito de gestão por ecossistemas acho que estamos também a avançar no bom caminho, mas creio que ao encarar este conceito de rendimento máximo sustentável como algo de radicalmente novo nós estamos aqui a cair num equívoco, porque este conceito, que é um conceito teórico, foi sempre ele que esteve na base de toda a fixação de quotas e de TACs, aliás não seria possível fazê-lo se não fosse na base deste conceito. O problema é que a sua aplicação tem muitos problemas que foram, aliás, muito bem apontados pela nossa relatora e também pela nossa colega Doyle e não podemos estar apenas baseados na sua aplicação cega, temos que tentar melhorar a sua eficácia, ver que vendo onde ele falhou e onde teve bons resultados e isso é um exercício que penso, sinceramente, esta comunicação não consegue fazer; e temos de ir além disso para todos os outros meios complementares.

É agora esse o desafio que se põe à Comissão de quem espero que venhamos a ter boas notícias nos próximos tempos.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I regret that this is one of those occasions when I am delighted that Parliament has so few powers in this field, especially as there is a real possibility that this report might be carried in the vote tomorrow.

If so, it may well be that some people will say, ‘well, Parliament has called on the Commission to look again at its proposals’. I would not like that public relations gesture to be made; I want the Commission to know that there are at least some MEPs who thoroughly disagree with what is being proposed here.

The Commission’s report back in 2006 was weak – motherhood and apple pie stuff, frankly – and was hardly worth putting on paper. There were plans, plans and plans being proposed but precious little by way of action. However, what is being proposed here by the rapporteur – by Parliament – is, to my mind, even worse. I look at one paragraph in particular: ‘Considers that the time is not ripe to propose the introduction of a maximum sustainable yield [MSY] system’. Apparently, we need more analysis. So, while the Commission wants plans, we simply want more talk about plans. When is something going to get done? If this is carried tomorrow by Parliament, then I hope the Commission will disregard it entirely because I regard this as completely irresponsible.

There is a question, a legitimate question, about the methodology to be applied in achieving the status of MSY. Frankly, we know what is needed; this is just playing with words half the time. If two thirds of the fish stocks are being fished beyond safe biological means, then you have to stop the fishing; you have got to put the fleets on the side, you have got to put fishermen out of work, perhaps with compensation, until such time as we have restored the stocks and given everyone the chance of a long-term, healthy future. You have got to allow the fish stocks to recover.

Frankly, we can debate the details of how we achieve perfection in MSY status when we have got the fish and the long-term security of having that fish firmly secured.

Commissioner, I have the highest respect for you; ever since we first met, I have liked what you have said. May I say two things? First of all, I think your profile is too low; I think your cabinet keeps you in meetings in the back room. I think Europe needs a champion for its fish and, just as you need to sort some problems out, you also need to be in front of Europe’s television cameras saying what needs to be done.

The second thing is this: you are three years, now, into a five-year term. There have been lots of good ideas, not enough delivery. I would like you to be a significant chapter in the European Union’s history over the deplorable common fisheries policy and its reform. So please, stop thinking of yourself as a footnote and get out there and make things happen!

Five years ago, I was at Johannesburg, where the European Union signed up to the principle of securing maximum sustainable yield status by 2015. We were not talking about introducing a policy by 2015; we were talking about getting the fish up to those levels by 2015. It should not have been just a piece – it has to be more than that.

If we are to do that, in eight years, it will probably be already too late. We have got to start having delivery, and, every day until that happens, you have to consider yourself a failure.

Do not listen to Parliament; do not listen to the Ministers who try and block you all the time – just start delivering.

  Carl Schlyter, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Fru talman! Jag kan hålla med om mycket av det Davies säger. Fisken håller på att dö! När den dör så blir det ingen inkomst för någon fiskare! Då är det väl mer intelligent att investera för framtiden genom att redan i dag ha just maximal hållbar avkastning, inte en maximal tillfällig avkastning, som varit unionens hittillsvarande politik. Den är helt ohållbar!

Sen kan man diskutera vetenskapliga brister med metoden och att den kanske är ett trubbigt verktyg, men EU har låg inflation som totalt mål för ekonomisk politik. Det är ett väldigt trubbigt verktyg, men det har man inte kritiserat på samma sätt. Det här är i sådana fall ett mycket mer skarpt verktyg och då vill jag tacka kommissionären. Ni har insett att politiken är helt fel, helt misslyckad, och försöker nu komma till rätta med den.

Senare kommer vi att diskutera problemet med ”discards” och en kombination av åtgärder kanske kan börja rätta till problemen. Men när vi pratar om socioekonomiska analyser måste man ha ett längre tidsperspektiv. Det är det mina ändringsförslag går ut på. För utan det så kan man säga: ”Jaha, dagens fiskare vill inte göra någonting!” Att göra alla framtida generationers fiskare arbetslösa, det är väl om någonting en dålig socioekonomisk analys.

  Pedro Guerreiro, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Acompanhando em geral os pontos fundamentais do relatório em debate, que têm uma importância crucial para o sector das pescas, consideramos útil salientar as diferenças entre o longo e o curto prazo na aplicação do princípio da sustentabilidade nas pescas. Isto é, os planos a longo prazo visam definir objectivos ou metas para conseguir uma situação estável que será alcançada ao fim de um prazo relativamente longo, ao passo que medidas a curto prazo são proposta estabelecidas anualmente com o objectivo de corrigir durante um curto período de tempo o nível de intensidade, de mortalidade por pesca até que seja alcançado o nível proposto como objectivo a longo prazo.

Quanto ao objectivo a longo prazo para as pescas, pode aceitar-se o objectivo principal definido em Joanesburgo, ou seja, obter um stock de captura máxima sustentável. No entanto, será importante salientar que, para formular o objectivo do rendimento máximo sustentável, é indispensável que a análise científica permita determinar a intensidade da mortalidade por pesca que garanta a máxima captura que o recurso pesqueiro poderá proporcionar de uma forma sustentável. Para tal é indispensável ter em conta as características naturais de cada recurso pesqueiro, assim como conhecer as características e a forma de actuação das artes de pesca. Para avaliar o nível de pesca conveniente para o objectivo a longo prazo, há que verificar as projecções propostas pelos cientistas o que implica que estas tenham base numa informação fidedigna, sejam adoptadas pelos gestores e aceites e cumpridas pela actividade pesqueira salvaguardando sempre, e sublinho sempre, a situação socio-económica do sector das pescas e dos pescadores.

Na prática, pretende-se estimar as capturas a longo prazo e os correspondentes níveis de intensidade de mortalidade por pesca. Para tal há que escolher um critério sobre a sustentabilidade e determinar o nível de pesca que produza o valor máximo de captura sustentável. É aqui que começa o verdadeiro debate.

Existem diferentes valores de níveis de intensidade de mortalidade por pesca que actualmente têm sido propostos para a gestão a longo prazo dos stocks das zonas económicas exclusivas dos Estados-Membros. Diversos cientistas consideram preferível o nível de intensidade de mortalidade por pesca designado como F0.1 e não, por exemplo, o FMSY, que consideram menos adequado. Saliente-se que não deverá ser confundido o FMSY, que é um valor de intensidade de mortalidade por pesca, com o MSY, que é o índice de captura.

Como consideração final gostaria de corroborar a necessidade de que as medidas de sustentabilidade sejam acompanhadas da avaliação das consequências e dos custos socio-económicos da sua concretização.

  Thomas Wise, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, it is not often that a member of the UK Independence Party congratulates a rapporteur in this House. In this case I will make a rare exception.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has estimated that the catch of 70% of fish species on this planet has already reached or exceeded maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The common fisheries policy, with the disgraceful problem of discards that results from it, has made a major contribution to what is potentially a grave ecological disaster, especially in the North Sea.

In the 1980s, the Canadian Government was warned by fishermen that cod was being dangerously overfished. The Government ignored the warnings and, by 1992, the cod fishery totally collapsed. A similar situation now seems to be evolving in European waters.

The rapporteur refers to deficient analysis and inadequate solutions offered by the Commission’s communication, which she goes on to describe as simplistic. The Commission has recently been criticised for the way it gathers and interprets statistics on maritime issues. In a recent briefing, the British Government refers to ‘an absence of necessary data on what the appropriate targets should be’. The Commission’s interpretation of MSY is based on outdated models and dogmatic ecological concepts. It clearly demonstrates the desire to gain further competences at any cost.

The loss of our fishing stocks is too high a price to pay, and I thank the rapporteur for being honest in her condemnation of the Commission’s communication. It surely says something when the Europhile PPE-DE Group is echoing the UKIP line. But then, everyone gets there sooner or later!

  Jean-Claude Martinez, au nom du groupe ITS. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, les rapports de nos deux collègues, dont celui de Carmen Fraga, portent sur ce problème insoluble de la pêche, parce que la ressource halieutique est limitée et que la demande, elle, ne cesse d'augmenter. Par conséquent, la politique de la pêche n'est pas la PAC.

Dans la PAC, depuis 1968 et Sicco Mansholt, la Commission poursuit depuis 40 ans une erreur stratégique, qui est un crime contre l'humanité: celle-ci a besoin de céréales et de lait et il en manque comme le prouve l'augmentation des prix.

Dans la politique de la pêche, c'est différent. Les erreurs de la Commission relèvent simplement de son péché habituel, technocratique, mais pas du crime stratégique. La gestion de la ressource avec des TAC, des quotas, des IFOP, des POP a échoué. La Commission a légiféré sur tout: les filets, les tonnages, la puissance de la flotte, le nombre d'unités et en fin de compte - le rapporteur nous le dit - il y a moins de pêcheurs, il y a moins de morue, il y a moins, même, de thon rouge en Méditerranée, d'où la colère des pêcheurs, aux mois de juin-juillet. Chez moi, par exemple, dans le port de Sète ou du Grau-du-Roi, les pêcheurs à la tonaille, qui est une pêche traditionnelle avec de petits filets, une pêche côtière, protestaient de ne pas pouvoir pêcher à partir de juillet.

Pour autant, en dépit de tous ces contrôles, de toutes ces démolitions, de toutes ces sanctions - peut-être même, un jour, on mettra un bracelet électronique au pêcheur pour le surveiller - les stocks sont en danger, nous dit le rapporteur. La politique commune de pêche n'a pas marché et pourquoi? Parce que le problème est planétaire: la Chine, l'Indonésie, les Philippines, le Pérou pêchent. Comme pour le vin, où nous arrachons quand le monde plante, nous cassons les bateaux quand les États-Unis les augmentent ou que la Russie, l'Islande, la Norvège augmentent la puissance de leurs bateaux.

On peut inventer des indicateurs, une espèce de rendement maximal durable, mais si le voisin pêche plus, le fait de pêcher moins n'améliore pas l'état des stocks. Et l'élevage, c'est-à-dire l'aquaculture, n'étant pas non plus une vraie solution à cause des farines de poisson, la pêche est donc l'exemple parfait démontrant que le niveau communautaire est à la fois trop haut quand la pêche est côtière, et que la décision doit être locale, ou trop bas quand la pêche est hauturière. Dans ce cas, soit on montera très vite au niveau planétaire avec l'aide des scientifiques, soit d'ici la fin du vingt-et-unième siècle, on ira au cinéma pour pêcher les derniers Nemo.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, I welcome and support this report and commend the rapporteur on its production. We have had years of talk about sustainable fisheries, and as many years of bureaucratic controls. Yet stocks in the main are no better, and fishermen are a lot fewer and a lot poorer. It is hard to escape the conclusion that fisheries policy to date has indeed been a hopeless failure.

Fishermen have been saying this for years, but until now the Commission has not been listening – nor, it seems, has Mr Davies, who seems to want more of the same failure. Total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas as the key instrument of control have been a disaster, generating the scandal of discards and, for many fishermen, nothing short of poverty. Yet within the new proffered maximum sustainable yield model, we still have this flawed overlapping of the TAC quota system with the fishing effort system. They must be disentangled. We cannot have both. We all want sustainable fisheries, but that means sustainability for fishermen too. It means discouraging discards. It means simplifying the technical measures, and it means embracing flexibility. Let us get there as quickly as possible.

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – Señora Presidenta, creo que es muy tarde, estamos todos ya muy cansados y creo que un tanto conmocionados por esa terrible noticia de la muerte de tres pescadores y la desaparición de cinco más en aguas gaditanas —el barco pertenecía a la flota de Barbate— y pienso que a todos nos deberían hacer reflexionar noticias como ésta, que dan prueba de las dificultades de una profesión que, aún a día de hoy, puede llevarse a ocho hombres de un solo golpe.

En ese sentido, creo, señor Comisario, que uno de los principales problemas que plantea esta Comunicación es que, al pretender actuar sobre los recursos restringiendo únicamente las actividades pesqueras, sin obligar al resto de los actores económicos con actividades ligadas al ecosistema marino, pierde —y perdemos todos— legitimidad política, sobre todo porque la Dirección de la Comisión encargada de pesca es también responsable de los asuntos marítimos.

La segunda de mis preocupaciones, o de mis interrogantes, es saber cómo la Comisión entiende la aplicación del RMS desde el punto de vista práctico, y es que todo indica que se plantean problemas, y problemas serios, sobre todo en el caso de las pesquerías mixtas en las que las diferentes especies actúan entre ellas y la tasa de captura que determina el nivel de esfuerzo no corresponde al RMS de cada especie individualmente. Otro problema que tenemos también es con aquellas poblaciones para las que no disponemos de ningún tipo de evaluación.

Lo cierto es que los profesionales del sector están preocupados y tienen razón cuando dicen que los huecos que deje la flota comunitaria para responder al RMS, a este compromiso político del RMS, esos huecos van a ser inmediatamente ocupados por empresas de terceros países, ya que el mercado pesquero está condicionado por la necesidad de garantizar un aprovisionamiento continuo.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, over the years I have not always agreed with our rapporteur, Ms Fraga Estévez, but much of this report I can agree with. It says the Community system has made controls difficult and encouraged discards. It says it welcomes the Commission’s communication recognising that the existing fisheries management policy has failed. It notes that it will be difficult to apply the maximum sustainable yield model to multi-species fisheries, which certainly applies to most that Scots fishermen are involved in. It notes that the model is unsuitable for pelagic species.

I disagree with the words ‘eliminated discrimination’ and will be asking for a split vote tomorrow to take these out, because I know from past discussions with our rapporteur that this is code for an attack on relative stability which, for as long as we have a common fisheries policy, must remain. But I agree also with the Commissioner’s comments earlier when he said that we must start to move in the right direction. After all the years of pain that has been inflicted directly as a result of the common fisheries policy, we should have been rather further forward by now.

  Urszula Krupa (IND/DEM). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Mając jedną minutę, proszono mnie o zabranie głosu w imieniu polskich rybaków, którzy chcą oświadczyć, że wprowadzone rozporządzenie Unii Europejskiej, dotyczące zakazu połowów dorsza, dyskryminuje polskich rybaków, zwłaszcza przy powszechnej wiedzy na temat połowów w innych krajach.

Rybacy mają nadzieję, że treść rozporządzenia wynika z niewiedzy Komisji Europejskiej na temat prawdziwej skali połowów ryb na Morzu Bałtyckim prowadzonych przez poszczególne państwa. Domagają się oni nie tylko wycofania rozporządzenia, ale powołania specjalnej niezależnej komisji przy Parlamencie Europejskim w celu zbadania i wyjaśnienia zasad i sposobu szacowania ilości ryb na Morzu Bałtyckim po rozszerzeniu Unii w 2004 roku oraz poznania rozmiaru nieprawidłowości.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Madam President, few of us will dispute the importance of having long-term sustainability of commercial fish stocks. The EU signed up to the commitment made by the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 to reach maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in fisheries by 2015 at the latest.

It is vital that we open up the debate on how to achieve the goal of reducing fishing pressure on vulnerable species, and this report by Ms Fraga Estévez is an important part of that process.

The merits of fishing at low levels of fishing mortality and building up a more robust spawning stock were also considered in the Net Benefits Report by the UK Prime Minister’s strategy unit.

As a Scot I am all too familiar with the pressures on vulnerable fishing stocks such as North Sea cod, and all the more with the practical difficulties of applying management plans in mixed fisheries areas such as off the Scottish coasts. The difficulties do not remove the obligation to act.

I welcome the recognition by the Commission of the need for stakeholder involvement and that regional advisory councils (RACs) are included in the proposed process for taking this forward. Some of the RACs have already begun to consider long-term management and the issue of MSY, and it will be important that the strategy is developed in partnership with stakeholders.

At this stage we should not get too side-tracked by discussing the technicalities of what MSY actually is and how it should be applied. A more important focus is bringing fishing opportunities into better balance with available stocks for a more sustainable future.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – Kallid kolleegid. Viis aastat tagasi säästva arengu tippkohtumisel Johannesburgis võtsime endale kohustuse säilitada kalavarusid ja taastada neid kiiresti tasemeni, mis tagab maksimaalse jätkusuutliku saagi. Planeeritav juhtimissüsteemi muudatus seab praeguse turvalise taseme ja ettevaatuse põhimõttega võrreldes tunduvalt ambitsioonikamad eesmärgid. Kuid muutuse plusse ja miinuseid tuleb väga hoolikalt kaaluda.

Euroopa Liit vajab kalavarude haldamisel paindlikku süsteemi ja võimalust kiireks reageerimiseks. Ka pikaajalistes kavades tuleb ette näha mõistlikud ning paindlikud iga-aastased kohandused. Euroopa Komisjon eeldab, et kalavarusid mõjutab eelkõige püük, kuid ilmanähtused, röövloomad, võõrliigid ning inimtekkelised probleemid võivad kalavarudele hävitavat mõju avaldada. Vene-Saksa gaasitoru mõju Läänemere keskkonnale pole veel hinnatud, kuid ehitus juba käib.

Mind tegi väga murelikuks Läänemeres hiljuti avastatud kärgmeduus, sest see Ameerikast pärinev liik laastas Musta mere kalavarud 80. aastatel praktiliselt olematuks ja teeb praegu hävitustööd Kaspia meres. Ta on aastaga levinud Rootsi rannikult Läänemere keskossa. Me ei tohi käed rüpes oodata, kuni ka Läänemere kalavarud hävitatakse.

Niisiis uue juhtimissüsteemi mõjusid tuleb uurida eelkõige piirkondlikul, mitte Euroopa tasandil, sest iga liikmesriigi kalalaevastikul on omad eripärad. Tulevikku vaatava kalanduspoliitika elluviimiseks on äärmiselt oluline aruteludesse kaasata piirkondlikud nõuandekogud. Muutus juhtimissüsteemis nõuab kahtlemata ka kalalaevade arvu ja nende püügikoormuse vähendamist ning tähendab seega suuri kaotusi meie kalandusettevõtetele. Euroopa Kalandusfondil ei ole ilmselgelt piisavalt vahendeid nii suurte kaotustega toimetulemiseks.

(president katkestas kõne)

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Madam President, first of all let me refer to the accident that Ms Fraga Estévez and Ms Miguélez Ramos mentioned. I share their concern and sorrow at the loss of life and hope that the missing fishermen can be brought to safety.

Allow me to pick up on some of the points that were raised in the debate, which have proved to be quite varied to say the least – poles apart on how to move forward. However, having said that, from the debate it is clear that we share a common view that fisheries have to be brought to sustainable levels as soon as possible. This does not mean that what we are proposing is drastic and immediate action. Rather we are setting ourselves an objective to arrive at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in a gradual and flexible manner. At each step we will re-evaluate and re-assess the targets we set and if required, we will adapt them to changing situations.

In other word, the MSY approach is providing us with a direction and not necessarily with a fixed target. Let me repeat, the MSY approach moves fisheries management in the right direction, away from over-exploitation and towards conditions of higher and more stable catches and lower costs.

This approach should be adaptive so that as we learn more – or, as environmental and ecosystem conditions change – new knowledge can be applied to the approach.

The point has been raised that MSY has not worked and is not appropriate for pelagic stocks, and that it is an outdated concept. Let me say there have been fisheries management strategies in Europe and in other parts of the world which were successful. Although the concept is not new, it does not mean that it is outdated. The important point is that, as long as it defines a path for fisheries management and is flexible enough to allow for regular revisions, it has good chances of success.

Good examples of some success can be seen in stocks such as saithe, North Sea haddock and mackerel, which are fished close to MSY level and which are generally stable and profitable.

Let me highlight one point. The purpose of this proposal is not to penalise fishermen, who, admittedly, have to make a number of adjustments, but rather it seeks to reach an objective and embark on a direction where the sector operates in a more stable and in a more profitable environment. As I stated in my opening statement, the European Fisheries Fund allows Member States to develop measures concerning adjustments of capacity and fishing effort in the context of long-term plans, including social and economic provisions involving the appropriate use of public money, in their operational programmes.

Another point raised relates to the fact that MSY will not work in mixed fisheries, because when targeting one stock to move towards MSY one could end up in a situation where the other stocks caught in such a mixed fishery are under-exploited. I think we have to be realistic about the situation and the majority of mixed fisheries. The stocks concerned are equally exploited to unsustainable levels. It is clear that the application of the MSY approach to mixed fisheries will be difficult and will have to be studied on a case-by-case basis. However, the mixed fisheries problem exists and, if we do not address it, there can be no improvements and no steps can be taken in the right direction.

Regarding consultation, let me say that the Commission is committed to stakeholder involvement and consultation. Many consultations have already been held since the adoption of the objective of MSY at the Johannesburg Summit. Such consultations involved Member States, scientists and the regional advisory councils, who are studying our proposal as well and who are seeking to advise us on the best way forward. Discussions on the plans will be held at a later stage, after we have developed impact assessments, consulted the industry and drawn up our specific proposals. I look forward to a continued dialogue with you on these plans.

  Die Präsidentin. Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 6.9.2007, statt.