Stenograma dezbaterilor

Miercuri, 30 ianuarie 2008 - Bruxelles

23. O politică de reducere a capturilor accidentale nedorite şi de eliminare a aruncării înapoi în mare a capturilor în activităţile de pescuit din Europa (dezbatere)

  Πρόεδρος. – Η ημερήσια διάταξη προβλέπει τη συζήτηση της έκθεσης Carl Schlyter, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Αλιείας, σχετικά με την πολιτική μείωσης ανεπιθύμητων παρεμπιπτόντων αλιευμάτων και εξάλειψης των απορρίψεων στην ευρωπαϊκή αλιεία (2007/2112(ΙΝΙ)) (Α6-0495/2007).

  Carl Schlyter, föredragande. − Fru talman! Jag tackar skuggföredraganden för att vi kunnat komma fram till ett bra betänkande. Jag vill också tacka kommissionär Borg för att ni äntligen – äntligen! – föreslår kraftfulla medel för att komma till rätta med dumpning av fisk och oönskade bifångster.

Vi har i dag en fiskepolitik som tömmer världshaven, som lämnar förstörda bottnar, förstörda ekosystem och utfiskade hav efter sig. T.o.m. sjöfåglar dödas av dagens fiskepolitik. Hade denna förödelse skett på land – om vi behandlat vår skog på samma sätt som vi nu behandlar haven – så hade vi haft uppror på gatorna, men nu sker förstörelsen av haven i det fördolda, i det tysta. Rachel Carsons bok Tyst vår blev ett begrepp 1962 och en väckarklocka för många att engagera sig för miljö- och naturvård. Nu står vi inför en tid med tyst hav. Faktum är att förra året gav journalisten Isabella Lövin ut en bok med precis den titeln. Låt oss nu få liv i kampen för att rädda framtida generationen fiskar och fiskare.

Kommissionens förslag innebär faktiskt att vi bryter totalt mot den typ av kvot- och detaljreglering där fiskare i praktiken har uppmuntrats till att tömma haven och sedan kasta tillbaka olönsam fisk död och där redskapsutveckling huvudsakligen handlat om att få upp mer och mer ur haven. Med hot om att tvingas fylla fartygen med olönsam fisk får fiskare i EU en piska att fiska mer selektivt.

Men för en framgångsrik politik behövs även morötter. Vi kan t.ex. tillåta fler fångstdagar för fartyg med selektiva åtgärder eller ge dem tillgång till områden som annars är stängda för fartyg utan selektiva redskap.

Det är viktigt att vi för varje typ av fiske sätter upp årliga minskningsmål för bifångster och dumpning och att vi har en dialog med inblandade parter för bästa resultat. Positiva exempel är Biscayabukten och Kattegatt och Skagerrak. Där har franska och svenska fiskare med stor framgång använt sorteringsgaller vid fiske av havskräfta (Nephrop på engelska). Dessa har i praktiken fullständigt eliminerat bifångster.

Med lite mer frihet och ansvar för fiskeflottan kanske ett större samarbete kan ske mellan forskare och fiskare, och det kan leda till en positiv utveckling. Det här kombineras med bättre data över vilken fisk som fångas. Vi behöver titta på system med elektroniska loggböcker och på eventuell videoövervakning, om vi kan hitta en bra lösning för bevarande av personlig integritet.

En annan viktig aspekt är vad vi ska göra med den fisk i form av bifångster som återkommer till hamnarna vid ett dumpningsförbud. Det är viktigt att den kan användas på något sätt, men samtidigt att nivån för ersättning blir så låg att den inte skapar incitament till att jaga bifångster.

Jag hoppas och tror att kommissionen snabbt arbetar fram ett förslag som kan genomföras. Då kan detta bli en viktig del i kampen mot utfiskning och för ett hållbart fiske. Men naturligtvis räcker inte det – vi behöver även generella minskningar av fiskeansträngningarna efter hotade arter i dag, men det kanske vi får debattera en annan dag.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur and all the members of the Committee on Fisheries for the excellent work.

We all share the view that discarding is, to say the least, an unnecessary waste of good natural and economic resources that should be stopped. However, each fishery is different and requires tailor-made solutions. We have therefore chosen a results-based approach which implies that we set targets to reduce the amount of discards over a timeframe and then leave it up to the fishermen concerned to choose how to reach the targets – such measures could include an increase in mesh size, the use of selectivity devices, real-time closures, spatial changes of activity or any other possible measure or a combination thereof.

Turning now specifically to the report. Concerning Community action plans on seabirds and sharks, I can inform you that the latter is under way and that, on the former, my services are gathering information and scientific advice with a view to completing the plan by the end of 2009.

I particularly agree that the discard policy should not be seen as an isolated action but as part of the general approach to move towards the MSY objective. We are also in agreement concerning a case-by-case approach and the importance of participation and consultation of the sector at all levels. Here I note with interest your proposal to test new uses of monitoring of discard practices as was done in some third countries.

In addition we must ensure that incentives reward a real reduction in discards. They therefore need to be assessed carefully so as not to lead to adverse effects. Indeed, Member States already have possibilities to favour cleaner fisheries through the allocation of quotas. Having said this, I am of the view that incentives should accompany the various phases of implementation, in order to boost a change in behaviour until the final objective is reached.

Concerning policy implementation, I generally agree with your suggestions, with a different focus, however. We should set the goal of a discard ban in a fishery wherever this is possible from the outset and not as a last resort measure as you seem to suggest. I need to clarify here, however, that in certain instances the set target may be that of reducing discards to the absolute minimum possible.

So where are we in the process? On the basis of scientific advice expected soon, we will choose fisheries for specific legislation during the course of this year and at the same time plan a roadmap with a timeframe for the subsequent proposals covering – over time – all European fisheries.

In parallel, as decided at the December Council, Member States will trial discard reductions in the whitefish fishery in the North Sea in order to reduce discards of whiting by 30%. For cod, the commitment with Norway is to reduce discards to less than 10%. Other activities include the proposal on technical measures in the Atlantic, the proposal on a revised cod recovery plan, the revision of the control regulation and several studies and impact assessments for the legislative proposals.

Finally, I can agree on Amendments 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 to 12. Amendments 2 and 7 are related and I can agree to them with a slight change. On Amendment 9, some cautious thinking is needed since these techniques need further research. There are problems with high costs and reliability.

Finally, I cannot support Amendment 4 as such. With respect to Amendments 13, 14 and 15, I need to reflect further, since the whole question concerning appropriate incentives for fishers to encourage them to adopt an effective discards policy needs to be further studied and assessed before a definitive position is adopted.

Let me conclude by restating the urgent need for legislative action on this file, and I look forward to your continued cooperation in developing this policy.

  Avril Doyle, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group . – Madam President, the discarding or dumping of fish in European waters destroys over a million tonnes of fish a year, particularly in multi-species fisheries. Globally, according to the FAO, millions of tonnes of unwanted fish by-catch are thrown back into the sea each year. This has a very negative effect on the economy of future fisheries and on the health of marine ecosystems. The practice is amoral, unethical and completely unsustainable and results directly from the Common Fisheries Policy, which criminalises fishermen for landing by-catch, thereby forcing them to discard – fishermen who are desperately trying to make a living while faced with ever-depleting levels of fish stocks.

Our ultimate aim has to be the reduction of these unwanted by-catches and the virtual elimination of discards through a discard ban, with incentives in place to ensure that all unwanted by-catch must be landed. But how and when we get to this point of a ban should be a matter for all stakeholders involved, including the Commission, the regional advisory councils (RACs), the fishermen, the scientific experts, the national governments and NGOs, and fishery by fishery if necessary. The negative micro-management spiral has to be avoided and the common fisheries policy needs to be fundamentally altered, as the discard issue seriously discredits it. Solving the problem of discards is beneficial for all actors concerned, particularly the fishermen. It is possible to implement bans, as the examples of Norway and Iceland show us.

I am pleased that the report emphasises that fishermen and other stakeholders need to take responsibility and ownership concerning any policy to eliminate discards. New ways to monitor fishing vessels could be used, such as electronic logbooks and the use of CCTV on the perimeter of fishing vessels, which has been piloted in Canada and New Zealand with some success. The only successful way to achieve implementation of any eventual discard ban will be through the involvement of the fishermen in monitoring and controlling and, above all, by peer pressure to ensure a level playing field. I thank the rapporteur for all his cooperation and this balanced report, which I commend to the House.

  Catherine Stihler, on behalf of the PSE Group . – Madam President, discards are an appalling waste. Vast quantities of fish are thrown away every year in European fisheries around the world: as much as seven to eight million tonnes. Doing nothing to reduce discards is not an option and we now have the Schlyter report as an own-initiative response to the Commission’s 2007 communication.

The Commission’s communication is welcome, despite the delayed action, and the Commission now intends to act quickly, with certain aspects to be included in a new technical measure regulation in 2008.

In an ideal world we would move straight to a complete and instant ban on discards. But the reality is more complicated. Mr Schlyter’s report recognises the complexity of dealing with the problem of discarding fish and I really welcome his inclusive approach.

It highlights practical aspects including the cost of dealing with discards and what to do with landed discards, the costs of introducing more selective gear, the implications for the total allowable catches and quota regime if discarding is banned, and the need to give fishermen incentives to fish in a more sustainable way. It acknowledges that, since both the causes of discards and the measures needed to reduce them vary from fishery to fishery, no single solution will work throughout the Community.

An amnesty on discards is not the solution as it may create a market in discards instead of encouraging fishermen to fish in a sustainable way. Given the levels of overfishing and concerns over fishing stocks including cod and bluefin tuna, we still need good management of existing stocks.

The report also places the discards issue in the broader context of the problem of by-catches of seabirds and of sharks and it calls for a significant range of pilot discard projects with a geographical spread.

I call on colleagues to support this report which makes an important contribution to dealing with the disgrace of discards.

  Elspeth Attwooll, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, the ALDE Group warmly welcomes the content of Mr Schlyter’s report, which is to be commended for its sensitive, yet highly practical, approach.

Members of the public find it almost impossible to understand just how it is that we can allow fish to be caught and then thrown back dead into the sea. Fishermen too have major concerns with the fact that this kind of action is, to some extent, forced upon them, for the current combination of rules and technical possibilities means that some fish are simply not wanted on board. Sometimes this is because they are of insufficient economic value. We must make an early and concerted effort to prevent the kind of discarding that results from attempts at high grading. I suspect that there is already less temptation to this practice in those fisheries where days at sea are limited.

Sometimes, though, discarding is the outcome of conditions we ourselves impose, for example minimum landing sizes, and restrictions on quotas. Of course, if we are serious about conservation, we need total allowable catches. But, in my own view, we need to look seriously at the methods we employ to keep fishing within the limits that are set by those TACs, to determine amongst other things, just how far there is an interconnection between the establishment of quotas and the problem of discards, particularly where mixed fisheries are concerned.

This, as well as the adoption of the measures suggested in the report, must of course be undertaken with the full engagement of stakeholders. Without that, we cannot hope for success. The industry is already leading the way. I am particularly proud of the Scots, for their voluntary system of real-time closures. We need proper incentives to positive actions of this kind for a great deal remains to be done. I trust that Parliament will give its full support to the report and that the Commission and Council will take matters forward in the manner it recommends.

  Seán Ó Neachtain, thar ceann an Ghrúpa UEN. – A Uachtaráin, ba mhaith liomsa a rá go n-aontaím go hiomlán leis an tuarascáil seo agus ceapaim go bhfuil an rapóirtéir tar éis teacht ar bhealach praiticiúil, iomlán maidir leis an bhfadhb atá os ár gcomhair: dramhaíl éisc a bheith caite i dtraipisí i bhfarraige. Ach níl sé chomh héasca agus a cheapann chuile dhuine na modhanna nua-aimseartha a chur i bhfeidhm.

Tá sé in am deireadh a chur le cuid mhaith cainte atá déanta ar an ábhar seo agus gníomh a chur in áit. Tá go leor atá sa tuarascáil an-phraiticiúil agus ar féidir oibriú air. Mar cinnte tá rud amháin nach féidir linn a dhéanamh – agus sin ‘tada’. Agus tá muid á dhéanamh sin le tamall fada maidir le fadhb na dramhaíola éisc.

Ba mhaith liom a iarraidh freisin ar an gCoimisiún a chinntiú nach iad na hiascairí beaga cois cósta a bheadh síos le haon ghníomh a chuirtear i bhfeidhm chun fadhb na dramhaíola seo a réiteach.

  Ian Hudghton, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the common fisheries policy (CFP) has been a miserable failure. It has failed to conserve stocks, it has failed to sustain our fishing-dependent communities and it has failed to win public support or credibility.

One of the main reasons for that is the scandal of discarding. The CFP quota system itself is a direct cause of discarding. It does not measure the amount of fish caught; it only measures the amount of fish landed.

That said, I broadly welcome this report by Mr Schlyter. In particular, I strongly agree with the principle of positive incentives giving some reward to those fishermen who take steps to reduce or eliminate discards.

I also agree that measures must be tailored to different types of fishery. It has long been a major flaw of the CFP that it has been over-centralised and inflexible. I draw attention to paragraph 15, which welcomes the voluntary real-time closure scheme introduced by Scotland, an excellent example of the kind of initiative which should be encouraged and incentivised by the CFP at least for as long as we are stuck with it as a management measure.

  Thomas Wise, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, discards are just one aspect of the nightmare that is the CFP. The EU, through its ill thought-out policy, is destroying livelihoods in developing nations across the world. The export of fish is significantly more important to the developing world in trade terms than other commodities such as rice, coffee and tea.

Mauritania, for example, is dependent on its fishing industry for half of its exports, which represent 15% of its GDP. But, having devastated Mauritanian waters, the Commission now wants to dump its deal. It does not think that these now sterile waters are worth EUR 86 million a year. This denunciation of a fisheries agreement is supposed to be a secret; well, it was until now. I think African people should know about the EU’s shabby and dishonourable plans. It is colonialism at its most vicious, and I accuse these institutions of racism and exploitation of vulnerable societies. President Barroso’s non-imperial empire is not as benign as he would have us believe, so, if you want to move forward, discard Giscard and dump the Lisbon Treaty as well as the CFP.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, the scandal of discards is one of the EU’s own making. Impossible quotas and restrictions are imposed in mixed fisheries, prohibited stocks are inevitably caught and in consequence they are dumped back – dead – into the sea. And all this while hunger prevails in many parts of the world.

For years the EU has wrung its hands over this but, frankly, has done nothing to stop it. Such fish, I believe, should be landed; they should be sold at a fixed price, sufficiently low to discourage deliberate catching and sufficiently high to make their landing worthwhile.

Also, it is sensible and right that we should reward the use of more selective fishing gear. But I do most positively reject any blanket discard ban as translating into yet another device of driving more of our fishermen out of business.

We have ruminated on this issue for years. Now is the time, at last, to do something about it.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE). – Señora Presidenta, en líneas generales apoyo el informe del ponente como expresión de la preocupación nada nueva por el inmovilismo de la política común pesquera para abordar problemas enquistados en nuestro sistema de gestión pesquera, del que los descartes son una muestra más.

Comparto, en particular, los párrafos que abogan por que la disminución y la progresiva eliminación de descartes y capturas no deseadas se adopten pesquería por pesquería, y por que una eventual prohibición sólo se implante cuando se compruebe que no funcionan otras alternativas, tal como han expresado el Consejo y todos los comités consultivos regionales.

No podríamos adoptar otro enfoque y no podríamos pasar a una prohibición total y generalizada de los descartes dentro de un sistema de gestión que los fomenta, tanto por el rígido sistema de las TAC y cuotas en vigor como por la ausencia de unas medidas técnicas adecuadas, pilar fundamental para evitar capturas accesorias y cuya revisión y adaptación para el Atlántico llevamos años esperando.

Lo que no puedo aceptar, señora Presidenta, es la enmienda número 10, que permitiría crear un mercado pesquero paralelo basado en pescado descartado y, por definición, ilegal. Creo que debemos mantenernos firmes en la defensa del principio de no comercialización de los descartes, tal como figura en el apartado 32 del informe y tal como han decidido países con mayor tradición en esta materia, como Noruega.

Los incentivos para evitar descartes deben ser de otro tipo: incentivos dirigidos a reducirlos a un mínimo, por ejemplo, a través del empleo de artes más selectivas. El mejor juvenil es el que permanece vivo en el mar y creciendo para servir de alimento a los hombres o a otros peces, y no el que se descarta para negociar con él en la fabricación de harinas de pescado.

  Σταύρος Αρναουτάκης (PSE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κατ’ αρχάς θα ήθελα να εκφράσω την ικανοποίησή μου για το σχέδιο της έκθεσης που αφορά την απόρριψη αλιευμάτων και να τονίσω ότι αποτελεί ένα από τα σημαντικότερα προβλήματα της ευρωπαϊκής αλλά και της διεθνούς αλιείας.

Θα ήθελα να προσθέσω κάποιες παρατηρήσεις σχετικά με την έκθεση. Πιστεύω ότι εκτός από τα προτεινόμενα σημεία θα πρέπει να εφαρμοσθεί μια ενιαία πολιτική για την τελική εξάλειψη των απορρίψεων. Μια πολιτική που θα προκύπτει από την μελέτη του ζητήματος σε όλους τους αλιευτικούς χώρους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, αλλά και που θα ενσωματώνει όλες τις εθνικές μελέτες και τις παγκόσμιες έρευνες.

Για να αντιμετωπισθεί ριζικά το πρόβλημα, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει άμεσα να χρηματοδοτήσει και να αναθέσει σε εξειδικευμένα ερευνητικά ιδρύματα τη μελέτη για κάθε αλιευτικό εργαλείο, για κάθε είδους αλιεία, για κάθε είδους αλίευμα. Έτσι θα μπορέσει να επιβάλει κεντρικά, με κανονισμούς, στα κράτη μέλη τις καλύτερες και αποδοτικότερες λύσεις. Σε αντίθετη περίπτωση, φοβάμαι ότι το ζήτημα θα εντοπίζεται και θα παραπέμπεται στο μέλλον, ενώ η καταστροφή θα επεκτείνεται ανεξέλεγκτα σε όλους τους αλιευτικούς πληθυσμούς.

  Philippe Morillon (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, je tiens à dire à mon tour tout le bien que je pense de l'approche proposée par notre rapporteur pour porter remède à ce gaspillage de ressources, à juste titre dénoncé par la pratique actuelle des rejets.

Carl Schlyter a, en effet, pris conscience, tout au long de l'élaboration de son rapport, de ce qu'une application immédiate d'une interdiction totale des rejets pourrait avoir pour conséquence, d'une part, pour le fragile équilibre financier des professionnels du secteur et, d'autre part, pour le contrôle de son application par les États membres et par la Commission elle-même, en exigeant d'eux un renforcement des moyens de surveillance incompatible avec la rigueur budgétaire à laquelle ils sont tenus.

C'est pourquoi il a préféré proposer la mise en place progressive d'une série de mesures destinées à inciter les pêcheurs eux-mêmes à modifier leurs méthodes et leurs instruments de pêche, ce qui lui a valu l'approbation massive de la Commission.

  Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE). – (inaudible) … from the outset, I think that is highly ambitious. Can I also congratulate Mr Schlyter and Mrs Doyle for the great amount of work they have both done on this report?

I am delighted to support Mrs Doyle’s land-all policy, whereby fishermen will be compelled to land everything they catch. It has many benefits. Scientists will get a much clearer picture of what fish are being caught and where, which will enable more accurate conservation and recovery plans to be devised. Also, when young, undersized fish are landed, fisheries inspectors could immediately call for a temporary closure of specific fishing grounds to avoid further pressure on immature stocks.

Under this policy, undersized fish and other species which previously would have been discarded could be sold to the processing sector, which is desperate for raw material to supply the fishmeal and fish oil industry. They would be paid – through a regional compensation fund – a token amount, say about EUR 50 a tonne, which would not be enough to encourage targeting these fish and creating the black market that Ms Fraga Estévez fears, but would be too much to throw them, dead, back into the water.

The whole operation could be policed by attaching weatherproof CCTV cameras to every vessel. In an industry already constrained by limitations of the number of days that can be spent at sea, time spent catching and sorting fish of no commercial value is regarded by fishermen as valuable time lost. So I think fishermen will support this proposal.

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – Señorías, quiero agradecer al señor Schlyter su trabajo y, sobre todo, me alegro de que bastantes enmiendas de las que presenté hayan sido incluidas en el texto del informe que hoy debatimos.

Me refiero, sobre todo, a las que aclaran que los descartes se deben no sólo al uso de una determinada arte de pesca, sino también al carácter de la pesquería de que se trate, como en el caso de las pesquerías europeas, que son todas de carácter multiespecífico y donde el riesgo de descartes es mayor. Por lo tanto, cualquier medida que se adopte debe ajustarse a cada caso concreto.

También, gracias a mis enmiendas, podemos ver en el informe que los descartes se deben a toda una serie de factores, entre los que podríamos mencionar el esfuerzo excesivo de pesca, pero también el actual enfoque en relación con las TAC, que obligan a los pescadores a descartar pescado para el que no se disponga de cuota, por lo que deben adoptarse medidas que impidan los descartes obligatorios de especies de tamaño legal capturadas de manera inevitable por la ausencia de cuota para dichas especies.

Dicho esto, yo quería decirle al señor Schlyter que tenga cuidado, porque después de la arenga que acaba de lanzar en su intervención en contra de los pescadores y de este oficio sacrificado y milenario que es la pesca, ya no sé muy bien qué estamos haciendo aquí ni si nos va a dejar el señor Schlyter al Comisario, a los miembros de la Comisión de Pesca y a los pescadores en el paro (Esto es una broma, señora Presidenta).

  Neil Parish (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I thank Mr Schlyter very much for his report. I think it is excellent. Can I also thank the Commissioner for his points at the beginning, where he is moving towards a discard ban, because he is very well aware that I have seen him many times, as many other Members of this House have, about bringing in a discard ban, and I think it is high time we did it.

I also think that, at the end of the day, if we can protect fisheries’ stocks, then actually it is better for fishermen in the long run, because we do have to have sustainable fisheries. Of course the scientific advice that we are using can very often be flawed. Therefore, the landing of all catch and by-catch so that it can be thoroughly investigated will actually give us a much better idea of what is in the sea. I also think that some of the practices, such as pair trawling and others, which do have an awful lot of by-catch, again, will emphasise what is happening. Of course, a lot of trouble catching dolphins, sharks and porpoises and many other things will be highlighted in the by-catch that is landed. So, if we can bring in the right amount of carrots to encourage it to be landed and not too much to encourage by-catch, then I think this is the way forward. So I welcome the Commissioner’s support for this report, I welcome the report itself, and we should all support it.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Members for their interesting comments, which demonstrate once again that we share the common objective of eliminating this appalling practice.

As I stated before, our proposal will be gradual but effective. Realistically speaking, we simply cannot bring about a discard ban overnight. However, as one speaker said, doing nothing is not an option. And, undoubtedly, during the course of this year we will be coming up, hopefully, with three legislative proposals on reducing discards for specific fisheries, apart from incentivising and encouraging Member States to come up with pilot projects, by virtue of which we could achieve the introduction of a reduction in discards or even, possibly, discard bans.

The example of Scotland, which was adopted by the Council in December, was a very laudable one.

Concerning the point that was made on positive incentives, I agree that these are important, but we need to find the right mix and the right levels, because otherwise they could be counterproductive, and we could end up with a situation whereby we encourage more catches when, for sustainability reasons, we would want to reduce them in order to reach MSY levels.

I would also like to point out that I could not agree more that our proposals must be tailor-made to the specific fisheries and must contain in-built incentives, as I said, and support for the changes in behaviour that fishermen will have to adopt.

Indeed, already, in our TAC and Quota Regulation, we adopted incentives for fishermen to adopt more selective methods, thus avoiding discards.

In the very first intervention and in others that followed, the point was made that discards are caused by the common fisheries policy. I would like to state that this is not really correct, because the causes of discards can arise form the high grading of fish by fishermen for the purpose of getting better quality fish, which is done independently of quotas, and the catching of juveniles, which is also independent of quotas. It is only where there is exceeding of catch quotas, and again this depends, because if it is a clean fishery and the quota is exceeded, then the quota is set for purposes of sustainability.

It is, in reality, where you have a mixed catch, and you have one of the types of catch which has a low quota for sustainability reasons, and the other catches targeted, that you have discarding of fish as a result of the TAC and Quota Regulations.

These are the aspects which we would like to address in order to introduce more selective gear, so that the catches can become even cleaner – which is one of the methods whereby discarding could be effectively reduced.

I would also like to point out that, according to FAO estimates, discards within Community waters are around one million tonnes. Worldwide they are around eight million tonnes. These are very conservative estimates. When one takes into consideration that the system that we operate is producing less than one tenth of all discards – taking into account the TACs and quotas – I think that there are various other factors which contribute to discarding apart from the system operated by the common fisheries policy.

Having said that, we are actively seeking ways and means whereby we improve the management so that the TACs and quotas operate in a way whereby discards are reduced to an absolute minimum or are completely banned.

Finally, on the point raised concerning Mauritania, I would like to say that we have just signed a new memorandum of understanding with Mauritania, and this will lead to a new protocol which will guarantee for Mauritania the same amount that they have under the existing protocol but which will reflect the actual fishing possibilities in a more realistic way.

So we will be paying Mauritania to help it strengthen its fisheries infrastructure and its economy in general under the development funds, so that, in that way, Mauritania is guaranteed the full amount. But at least what we pay for fish would reflect the actual amount of fish that it is possible to catch in Mauritanian waters.

  Carl Schlyter, föredragande. − Tack fru talman! Ja, herr kommissionär, det är självklart att det finns många orsaker till att man kastar fisk överbord, men jag anser fortfarande att detta har förvärrats av element i vår fiskepolitik.

En sak vill jag fråga er: Jag förstår inte riktigt varför ni är emot ändringsförslag 4 när det går i den riktning som ni själv eftersträvar. I betänkandet i dag står det att beslut om förbud mot att kasta överbord ska bara göras efter att andra åtgärder har prövats. Ändringsförslaget innebär att genomförandet av ett beslut om att förbjuda att kasta överbord ska prövas efter andra negativa incitament. Vi utgår ju då från samma logik om ändringsförslag 4 blir godkänt, att vi har policyn om förbud att kasta överbord men att genomförandet blir beroende av förutsättningarna för varje enskilt fiske. Jag förstår inte riktigt varför ni sade att ni var emot ändringsförslag 4, men vi kan kanske prata mer om det senare.

Det som gör mig optimistisk är väl att vi ändå känner någon slags konsensus. Jag har talat både med forskare och fiskare. Det råder god konsensus här om vad som behöver göras. Kommissionen och parlamentet är i samma riktning och även fiskare och miljöorganisationer är med på tåget. Det gör mig lite optimistisk. Här kanske alla aktörer kan samarbeta och då får vi nog resultat.

Delad omröstning har begärts om ändringsförslag 10. Man kan därför ta hänsyn till vad Fraga sade om att man kan rösta för första delen och mot andra delen.

Tack ska ni ha och tack alla ni som har deltagit i debatten och arbetet. Det har varit roligt att jobba med det här betänkandet.

  Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί αύριο Πέμπτη, 31.1.2008.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 142)

  Bogdan Golik (PSE), na piśmie. – Szanowni Państwo!

Wielkość odrzutów, które jak szacuje sprawozdawca mogą stanowić nawet jedną czwartą połowu ryb to poważny problem środowiskowy i ekonomiczny. Wobec tego problemu nie możemy pozostać obojętni. Skala zjawiska wskazuje na ogromne marnotrawstwo zasobów i poważne zaburzenie bioróżnorodności wynikłe z nieodpowiedniej ingerencji człowieka.

Wprowadzanie technicznych zmian do przepisów nie przyniesie pożądanych skutków. Sytuacja wymaga od nas znacznie szerszego działania- wręcz przeformułowania dotychczasowego podejścia i sposobu myślenia. Musimy jasno zdefiniować sobie cele, które chcemy osiągnąć, odpowiednio dopasować spójne instrumenty WPRyb oraz zabezpieczyć na to odpowiednie fundusze. Należy unikać obecnej sytuacji, gdzie ignoruje się efekty uboczne funkcjonowania niektórych instrumentów. Przykładem może być stosowanie całkowitych dopuszczalnych połowów lub minimalnych wielkości ryb do wyładunku (zwłaszcza w połowach mieszanych), które prowadzą do dokonywania odrzutów.

W pełni zgadzam się z postulatem sprawozdawcy by nasze podejście do ograniczania odrzutów bazowało w dużej mierze na pozytywnych bodźcach, które zmotywują rybaków do szukania nowych, innowacyjnych rozwiązań w zakresie metod połowów czy narzędzi połowowych. Warto korzystać zarówno z ich doświadczenia, jak i wiedzy środowisk naukowych.

Chciałbym podkreślić, że duże znaczenie dla sukcesu strategii będzie miała odpowiednia kampania informacyjna. Bez zrozumienia przez środowisko rybackie zasadności idei eliminacji nadmiernych odrzutów i ogólnego poparcia rybaków strategia ta jest skazana na porażkę.