Stenograma dezbaterilor

Miercuri, 9 aprilie 2008 - Bruxelles

27. Activităţi de pescuit ale navelor de pescuit comunitare în afara apelor comunitare şi accesul navelor ţărilor terţe în apele comunitare (dezbatere)

  President. − The next item is the report by Philippe Morillon, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (COM(2007)0330 - C6-0236/2007 - 2007/0114(CNS)) (A6-0072/2008).

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, first of all allow me to thank the rapporteur for his work on this report. Since the adoption of the Council Regulation on fisheries outside community waters in 1994, many conditions have changed and international obligations have increased for the authorisation of Community vessels outside Community waters.

This proposal has, therefore, been put forward as part of the 2006-2008 Action Plan for simplifying and improving the common fisheries policy. The aims of the proposal reflect that spirit by integrating existing legislation into one regulation, while ensuring that the rules applying to Community vessels in third-country waters are applied equally to third-country vessels in Community waters.

Many provisions are unchanged regarding the current system of issuing fishing authorisations. The major new points of the proposal can be summarised as follows. Firstly, all fisheries agreements under which Community vessels fish are included in the scope of the proposal, those being fisheries partnership agreements, bilateral fisheries agreements, agreements in the context of regional fisheries management organisations and private agreements. This wide scope is essential, as all flag states under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are responsible for the vessels flying their flags. Consequently, vessels fishing under all kinds of agreements should be included.

Secondly, a mechanism to reallocate under-utilised fishing opportunities has been introduced in order to optimise the utilisation of fishing opportunities under the fisheries agreements. This point was raised during the discussions on most fisheries partnership agreements and is now integrated into each of them in order to increase the value for money under each agreement.

As a last point, I would like to mention the proposed provisional application of fisheries agreements, which will grant the Commission the necessary legal basis to transmit licence applications to third countries prior to the adoption of the Council Regulation concluding the agreement. This will, in most cases, ensure that Community vessels can continue their fishing activities in third-country waters without interruption.

Turning to the report, I would like to comment on the amendments proposed. The Commission can agree to Amendments 1, 3, 5, 11 and 16. As for Amendments 7 to 9 concerning the eligibility criteria, this list has been transformed into a positive list, rather than a negative one, in the first Presidency compromise text. In general terms, the compromise text, however, covers the Committee’s concerns, except for the extension of the eligibility criteria regarding infringements in the past 12 months, which is Amendment 8. The Commission finds that this provision should remain unchanged, believing it important as a precautionary measure in case of possible serious infringements.

The Commission cannot accept Amendment 2 on the definition of infringements, as the definition of serious infringements is clear and is set out in Regulation No 1447/99. Regarding the amendment concerning non-transmission of all applications, which is Amendment 12, it should be noted that Article 10 has been deleted as part of the Presidency compromise text. This was done on the basis of the opinion of the Council’s legal service, which stated that the Commission has no legal basis to penalise the vessels of Member States as proposed in this article.

The Commission also finds that the Member States’ possibility of giving their opinion on any decision is already provided for in Article 9(2) and that any informal procedure prior to or after a negotiation should not be contained in this regulation. Therefore, Amendments 6 and 10 cannot be accepted.

Before closing, I would like to stress the following. Firstly, the daily transmission of catch data is required under the Regulation on electronic logbooks. Secondly, closing a fishery implicitly means that fishing authorisations are no longer valid for the stocks or areas concerned. Thirdly, all fishing activities in mixed fisheries must be considered as affecting the stocks concerned. Fourthly, national legislation determines what can be used as evidence in a court of law. This is why the Commission cannot accept Amendments 13, 14, 15 and 17. Amendment 4 and Amendments 18 and 19 cannot be accepted, since the text proposed by the Commission is correct – in the case of Amendment 4 – or is sufficiently clear – in the case of Amendments 18 and 19.

Equally, I cannot accept Amendments 20 to 24, since the scope of the proposal is to cover all agreements and not just third-country agreements, as I said at the outset. In addition, the reallocation of unused fishing opportunities is necessary in order to ensure the best possible utilisation of the fishing possibilities under the agreement. Such reallocation is best dealt with in the context of the issuing and renewal of licences.

Finally, I would like to stress that this proposal is part of a package containing the proposal on combating IIU fishing, as well as the revision of the Control Regulation to follow later this year. As referred to by the Committee on Fisheries, the Commission will, while keeping transparency and simplification in mind, aim to harmonise these proposals and avoid any overlap between them.

  President. − Just to explain: because it is a Commission proposal, the Commission speaks first. I think Mr Morillon was looking as confused as I was.

  Philippe Morillon, rapporteur. − Madame la Présidente, rien ne m'étonne et en particulier rien ne m'a étonné dans la communication du commissaire.

Monsieur le Commissaire, merci de cet exposé très détaillé. Je voudrais simplement rappeler ici que l'objectif déclaré de la proposition de règlement du Conseil est de simplifier, d'améliorer les procédures en matière de gestion des autorisations de pêche. Il s'agissait de mettre en place des dispositions générales applicables à toutes les demandes d'autorisation, vous l'avez bien dit Monsieur le Commissaire.

Une procédure unique pour la gestion de toutes les autorisations de pêche a été proposée. Le partage des responsabilités entre la Commission et les États membres est défini. De nouveaux critères d'éligibilité, des sanctions en cas d'infractions et des dispositions en matière d'information sont également proposés. Le respect des obligations internationales prévues par les différents accords est renforcé par l'introduction de mesures obligeant les États membres à interdire à un navire d'exercer ses activités de pêche s'il s'est trouvé impliqué dans une infraction grave ou s'il a été inscrit sur une liste de participation à des activités de pêche illicite, non déclarée et non réglementaire.

Mme Catherine Stihler avait été désignée pour ce rapport mais, son avis n'ayant pas été suivi par la majorité des membres de la commission de la pêche sur deux points qu'elle considérait comme essentiels, elle a préféré retirer son nom du rapport. Il me revient donc de vous présenter ce projet en ma qualité de président de la commission. Mais je tiens à saluer au passage son travail et je lui laisserai le soin, en nous représentant ses amendements, de nous donner les raisons de sa décision.

Sur son rapport, qui est aujourd'hui le mien, la commission de la pêche a proposé, dans le cadre de la procédure de consultation, plusieurs amendements, dont vous avez donné toute la liste exhaustive – non pas la liste mais les numéros, Monsieur le Commissaire –, à la proposition de règlement du Conseil. Ceux-ci ont été adoptés à une large majorité de 19 voix pour, 5 voix contre et 2 abstentions. Je n'en présenterai ici que les principaux.

Premièrement, le règlement ne devrait pas s'appliquer aux territoires d'outre-mer des États membres de l'Union européenne. Deuxièmement, une infraction grave ne doit être considérée comme telle que si elle a été confirmée au terme de poursuites menées conformément au droit national applicable.

Troisièmement, il faut entendre par liste INN la liste des navires de pêche identifiés dans le cadre des organisations régionales de pêche ou par la Commission, en application du règlement du Conseil établissant un système communautaire destiné à prévenir, à décourager et à éradiquer la pêche illicite non déclarée, non réglementaire, cette tâche si importante, Monsieur le Commissaire, à laquelle vous vous êtes attaché personnellement.

Quatrièmement, la Commission ne devrait transmettre les demandes à l'autorité habilitée à délivrer des autorisations qu'après avoir donné aux États membres l'opportunité de soumettre leurs observations.

Cinquièmement, la Commission ne peut refuser de donner suite à des demandes que lorsqu'elle a connaissance, au travers de faits dûment établis, qu'un État membre ne s'est pas conformé aux obligations dans le cadre d'un accord particulier.

Sixièmement, enfin, les navires de pêche communautaires pour lesquels une autorisation a été délivrée doivent communiquer à leur autorité compétente nationale les informations relatives aux captures et à l'effort de pêche, à une fréquence appropriée à l'accord et à la pêche concernés. Cette obligation doit être compatible avec celles contenues dans le règlement relatif au livre de bord électronique.

Je laisse à mes collègues le soin de développer, parce que certains en sont les auteurs, certains des amendements.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez, en nombre del Grupo PPE-DE. – Señora Presidenta, en líneas generales, y salvo algunos aspectos en los que la Comisión de Pesca, en coincidencia con el Consejo, ha corregido a la Comisión para evitar excesos de discrecionalidad, apoyamos el fondo de esta propuesta, cuyo objetivo es que exista un marco único sobre el sistema comunitario de autorizaciones para los buques que faenan fuera de las aguas comunitarias.

Por ello, el Grupo del Partido Popular Europeo va a votar en contra de las enmiendas ya rechazadas por la Comisión de Pesca y que han vuelto a ser presentadas con 40 firmas, que van justamente en el sentido contrario, es decir, en el de insistir en que los acuerdos por intercambios de cuotas sigan al margen de la legislación general sobre licencias de pesca.

En mi opinión, cuando sigue de máxima actualidad el informe del Tribunal de Cuentas sobre las carencias de la política de control y se ha decidido abordar de una vez la lucha contra la pesca ilegal, es muy poco presentable pretender que unos cuantos acuerdos sigan al margen de un marco general muy necesario, como garantía jurídica básica de un trato igualitario y no discriminatorio, tanto entre operadores como entre Estados miembros.

Hay que recordar, además, que estamos inmersos en un enfoque integrado y coordinado de las distintas políticas comunitarias, y en particular de la política marítima, enfoque que este Parlamento ha apoyado decididamente, al igual que el más necesario proceso de simplificación de la legislación comunitaria.

En este sentido, no hay que olvidar que estamos hablando de más de 9 000 buques que operan en los distintos acuerdos y organizaciones regionales de pesca, lo que supone tramitar más de 16 000 autorizaciones de pesca, puesto que ningún acuerdo, ni del norte ni del sur, está exento de esta obligación.

Si de algo es el momento, por tanto, es de armonizar y simplificar un marco lo más homogéneo posible y no de seguir creando diferencias que sólo dificultan el control y generan desconfianza en las normas.

  Catherine Stihler, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Madam President, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Morillon report on fishing authorisations – or I should say the ex-Stihler report. As the original rapporteur, I was compelled to remove my name from the report when the Committee on Fisheries rejected my key amendments. The report was supposed to simplify fishing authorisations. Instead, the Commission over-reached itself with an unnecessary article awarding itself the right to reallocate fishing quotas.

If supported unamended, this report will unjustly discriminate against northern countries and their historic fishing rights and jeopardise relative stability. To give the Commission carte blanche to reallocate fishing opportunities beggars belief, especially when fishing opportunities are scarcer. We have to ask ourselves whether we are facing a fishing free-for-all in the North Sea. This is not in the interests of Scottish fishermen, nor is it in the interests of protecting and conserving stocks. The next review of the common fisheries policy is due by 2012 and this report is a wake-up call that historic fishing rights are under threat in the North and Baltic Seas. I have retabled key amendments for the plenary and urge colleagues to support them. If these amendments are defeated, I urge voting against this report.

  Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mr Morillon on taking over this report on behalf of the committee, but I really have to commiserate with Ms Stihler, because she did a lot of work and then, as we heard, she had to withdraw her name from the report. That is always a great cause for frustration, after a rapporteur has put a great deal of hard work into the preparation of a complex bit of work like this. But I can well understand her reasons for doing so.

While few in this Parliament would argue with any proposal that seeks to enhance fisheries compliance, it is of major concern to me that Article 13 of the report, which deals with under-utilisation of fisheries opportunities, will simply provide the Commission with the right to reallocate fishing opportunities from one Member State to another. This would clearly undermine the entire concept of relative stability and as such would destabilise one of the core principles of the common fisheries policy. In fact, Article 13 is something of a Trojan horse, as it seems to have more to do with gaining access to fishing opportunities previously allocated to other Member States than with reducing bureaucracy and red tape and improving compliance, which I thought the report was all about.

I know that in the Fisheries Council the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Denmark have all expressed similar concerns, so, as Ms Stihler said, this is a resurrection of the old North-South divide, which I thought had disappeared long ago, and that is something that we do not want to see coming back. I very much hope – contrary to what Commissioner Borg told us in his earlier remarks – that tomorrow Parliament will vote in favour of Amendments 20, 21, 22 and 23, tabled by Ms Stihler and signed by 40 MEPs.

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – Gracias, señora Presidenta. Yo, señor Stevenson, estoy segura de que vamos a votar en contra de esas enmiendas que usted acaba de mencionar y no me cabe la menor duda de que esta situación Norte-Sur resulta completamente nueva para usted. Usted, de momento, solamente ha vivido la situación Norte y nosotros hemos vivido la situación Sur. Ahora nos gustaría vivir un poquito la situación Norte, porque nos parece que a ustedes en el Norte les va bien y, por lo tanto, en el Sur nos animamos a compartir un poco.

Yo quisiera, en primer lugar, felicitar a la Comisión por su buena voluntad para simplificar el texto de la propuesta, que es verdad que en su primer versión contenía algunos elementos de difícil aceptación. La revisión del Reglamento de control, también el Acuerdo con Groenlandia y algo que ha mencionado el Comisario —la propuesta de Reglamento sobre pesca IUU— permiten limitar el ámbito de esta propuesta.

Yo estoy segura de que mi Grupo se va a pronunciar mañana, como ya lo hizo en comisión, en contra de aquellas enmiendas que intentan evitar la adopción de un mecanismo general de utilización de las posibilidades de pesca excedentarias, algo que hemos defendido siempre, como siempre hemos estado a favor de la necesidad de contar con un sistema uniforme para la utilización de las posibilidades de pesca excedentarias aplicable a todos los acuerdos —no solamente a los acuerdos del Sur—, que fue el compromiso del Consejo con motivo de la ratificación del Acuerdo de Asociación con Groenlandia. En consecuencia, creo que puedo afirmar que mi Grupo votará en contra de aquellas enmiendas que buscan que este esquema se aplique sólo a los acuerdos del Sur y no a los acuerdos del Norte. Así es que se lo vamos a aplicar yo creo que a todos, y de esta manera todos nos vamos a sentir más cómodos.

Y sobre el artículo 12, estamos de acuerdo con que exista un procedimiento provisional de asignación de licencias antes de que el Consejo adopte la decisión por la que se ratifica dicho acuerdo y creemos que es necesario encontrar una solución jurídica para esta cuestión. Coincidimos, por tanto, con la Comisión en la necesidad de contar con un mecanismo que permita asegurar que las posibilidades de pesca no se ponen en riesgo —tal y como se recoge en el artículo 12— en caso de que no se hayan finalizado los trámites de ratificación de un acuerdo de pesca.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, according to the Commission, the aim of this proposal is to serve the objectives of the common fisheries policy and to allow the Community to better ensure compliance with its international obligations.

The Community fishing fleet is active in the territorial waters of around 20 countries under the scope of bilateral agreements. But as we seek to manage our fisheries sustainably by limiting fishing in the European Community waters, we should be careful not to export the problem of over-fishing by handing out authorisations for vessels to freely exploit waters of third countries.

As I pointed out to Commissioner Borg only last month, we must pay particular attention to our international moral obligations to Africa. Unsustainable exploitation of marine resources in Africa’s oceans on a massive scale is causing the collapse of fisheries, the loss of critical ecosystems and the extinction of marine wild life. A large part of the problem is unreported illegal and unregulated fishing by the EU and other fishing companies. In 2005 alone an estimated 40% of fish were caught without licence or in violation of regulations in the waters of Guinea-Bissau.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, first of all on the issue of the inclusion of overseas countries and territories, I wish to clarify that the regulation does not apply to them, since the scope of the proposal does not cover vessels flagged with overseas countries and territories. However, it does apply to the outermost regions, which are considered Community waters.

I agree with those who have supported this proposal as it stands, with its wide scope in order to make all agreements more effective and to ensure more value for money, in line with the overall objectives set by the Committee on Fisheries itself and others, like the Court of Auditors.

On the amendments, let me again say that some of the amendments are accepted, as I indicated. Others have been overtaken by virtue of the first Presidency compromise text or because the proposed amendments are already provided for elsewhere in the regulation or in some other legal provisions.

I would like to repeat that all fisheries agreements under which Community vessels fish are to be included in the scope of the proposal. This is essential, because the states party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as I said before, are responsible for the vessels flying their flags.

Secondly, the reallocation of under-utilised fishing opportunities is there to optimise utilisation of fishing opportunities under the fisheries agreements. This is, after all, only proper management of fisheries agreements and it will not undermine relative stability, given that Article 13(6) of the proposal states the following: ‘Transmission of applications in accordance with this article shall not in any way affect the future allocation of fishing opportunities amongst Member States.’ So it will be a reallocation to maximise the fishing opportunities granted or available under fishing agreements and not a means whereby a precedent would be set which would undermine relative stability.

Finally, I would also like to say that this provision is becoming a regular feature of fisheries partnership agreements with third countries and it has also been included, with the agreement of the Council, in the Greenland agreement.

  Philippe Morillon, rapporteur. − Madame la Présidente, il ne me faudra probablement pas tout ce temps-là pour dire que ce débat aura été utile et que, finalement, le fait que certains de nos collègues aient déposé des amendements par rapport au vote très unanime l'a autorisé.

Vous avez bien compris, Monsieur le Commissaire, qu'il y a deux soucis dans cette affaire. Vous avez répondu, en partie, au premier souci exprimé, qui est le maintien de la stabilité relative. C'est l'objet des amendements 20 à 24 déposés par nos collègues. Le deuxième souci est celui exprimé par Catherine Stihler, à savoir que, à l'occasion de cette révision du règlement, il puisse y avoir une exploitation non raisonnable des ressources halieutiques, et en particulier des ressources halieutiques des pays tiers. Certains de mes collègues ici s'en sont fait l'écho et c'est la raison pour laquelle ils avaient signé.

Je crois pouvoir dire à cet égard que rien dans le texte du rapport qui sera voté demain ne peut donner cette inquiétude, mais il appartiendra à nos collègues demain d'en décider puisque, Madame la Présidente, vous allez annoncer, je pense, que ce rapport sera voté demain.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 10 April 2008.

VORSITZ: MECHTILD ROTHE
Vizepräsidentin