Stenograma dezbaterilor

Miercuri, 9 aprilie 2008 - Bruxelles

28. Instrumentele de gestionare bazate pe drepturile de pescuit (dezbatere)

  Die Präsidentin. − Als nächster Punkt folgt der Bericht von Elspeth Attwooll über auf Nutzungsrechten basierende Bewirtschaftungsinstrumente in der Fischerei (A6-0060/2008).

  Elspeth Attwooll, rapporteur. − Madam President, my thanks are due to the shadow rapporteurs and all on the Fisheries Committee for producing a well-balanced report on what is a very complex and in many ways sensitive issue.

In some public debate, rights-based management is equated with the employment of individual transferable quotas. The report takes a much broader view, treating the term as covering any of the forms that can be taken by the right to harvest fish, given that these are seen as a common public good. So understood, it is clear that there is a variety of such forms currently in operation throughout the EU. For example, the extent of the right may be specified by reference to the territory to be fished, the amount of fish to be harvested, the effort allowed or some mixture of these. Similarly, although the right is implicitly transferable, there are various limitations in this respect. For example, that from Community to Member States is conditioned by the principle of relative stability. Further, there seems to be a considerable range of such limitations. One particular form of divergence between Member States is how far transfer for economic value is permitted, either formally or informally, and thus amounts to a tradable right.

The central issue is, then, how fisheries management should engage in constituting the right to harvest in order best to obtain the objectives of the common fisheries policy. The Commission communication raises the question of the extent to which a single system might be introduced, either at Community level or by harmonising the practice of Member States. The report of the Fisheries Committee details a number of concerns about the adverse impacts that certain types of rights-based management might have, but also touches on the manner in which some of these might be prevented. It indicates too the way in which certain types of rights-based management can have positive effects, provided they are properly devised.

The report notes the variety of systems of rights-based management currently in place, the degree to which the forms of right concerned are hybrid ones and the complexity of the issues involved. It is consequently rightly cautious about the idea of moving to any single system. Over and above the need to protect artisanal fleets, we raise the question of whether, on a more general basis, the same system would be appropriate for both single species and multi-species fisheries. We finish by asking the Commission to address a number of different questions in its study and, in view of all that needs to be taken into consideration, to allow a longer time for debate.

In conclusion, I would like to touch more deeply on one aspect of the report. Although rights-based management is essentially a juristic concept, I have the impression that much of the drive towards its discussion has come from economists.

I do not think that anyone here would doubt that fisheries management must take account of sound economic principles. Indeed the report indicates some of the positive outcomes to which economic efficiency may give rise.

But such efficiency has to be seen as an instrumental good. As the report states, it is valuable insofar as it promotes the objectives of the CFP. I have personal doubts that economic efficiency is sufficient, in itself, to promote all these objectives to the desired extent and suspect that there are ways in which it may prove counterproductive to some aspects of them.

I seek reassurance, therefore, that the Commission will take a genuinely rounded approach, both in relation to the content and to the outcome of the study.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, first of all allow me to thank the rapporteur, Ms Attwooll, and all the members of the Committee on Fisheries for a very thorough report, the contents of which I can almost fully endorse.

The report recognises the main advantage of rights-based management systems as being increased economic rationale in fisheries. This is a crucial issue in the present context, where poor economic performance is the rule rather than the exception. The quest for a higher degree of economic efficiency generally has very positive effects on overcapacity and hence on sustainability of fisheries activities.

The report, however, also accurately identifies the possible negative effects. In my opinion, such effects could be contained, if not eliminated, by introducing provisions intended to limit concentration of rights, to deal with allocation issues and, as proposed by the report, to protect artisanal fleets. These are being dealt with by various means in third countries where rights-based management systems in general, and individual transferable quotas in particular, have been in place for quite some time. As stated in the report, such systems are a complex matter, but difficulties associated with them are not insurmountable.

On balance, I think the possible benefits are larger than the possible negative effects. However, I would like to confirm once more that the Commission has no intention of proposing Community management systems. Nor is it the Commission’s intention to promote a given and universal rights-based management system. Different fisheries will require different systems. I am also fully aware of the sensitivity of this issue in relation to relative stability.

The Commission will continue working on this issue. In the short term, we are aiming at increasing the general knowledge on rights-based management and identifying best practices to be shared with Member States’ national or regional governments with fisheries competences. We will also consider issuing guidelines or similar supporting documents to that effect.

The results of the consultation process – including, of course, the report of the European Parliament – and the outcome of the ongoing study on rights-based management systems in the Member States and experiences in third countries will be important inputs for this process.

In the medium term, rights-based management is going to be one of the topics in our reflection towards the next reform of the common fisheries policy.

The Commission will keep you informed about these future developments and I look forward to further fruitful discussions with you on this important issue.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez, en nombre del Grupo PPE-DE. – Señora Presidenta, este Parlamento, hace más de diez años, ya tomó en consideración la posibilidad de introducir en la PCP los derechos de pesca, a través de un informe de iniciativa sobre la futura revisión de la PCP.

Por ello, sólo podemos mostrar nuestra satisfacción ante la decisión de la Comisión de analizar por fin las posibilidades de este instrumento de gestión pesquera, aunque de manera, en mi opinión, demasiado simplista y superficial, temerosa, sin duda, de desatar las furias del Consejo en estos temas.

Los segmentos más inmovilistas y menos emprendedores, tanto en el sector pesquero como en el Consejo, siempre han temido cualquier cambio de un sistema de gestión, aunque fuera para mejor. Pero no por ello estos sectores y Estados miembros están en mejor situación, ni siquiera en igual situación que hace 30 años, sino que, además, siguen arrastrando a los sectores más dinámicos a un callejón sin salida.

Es cierto que la gestión mediante la atribución de derechos de pesca suscita interrogantes en cuanto a su implantación, pero no es menos cierto que países donde la pesca sí importa como un sector de futuro los han sabido resolver, poniendo de manifiesto que, al menos para segmentos de flota capaces de evolucionar hacia planteamientos más modernos, eficaces y sostenibles, tiene ventajas nada desdeñables.

Por eso también aplaudimos el informe de la señora Attwooll que, junto a las preocupaciones, ha sabido reflejar las posibles ventajas, entre las que se podrían contar la mejora del control, la reducción de la capacidad, la disminución de los descartes y la menor dependencia de las ayudas públicas.

Y quiero decirle a la señora Attwooll que, efectivamente, la pesca es una actividad económica, y una actividad económica que tiene que ser rentable, cosa que ahora está empezando a no ser y, por tanto, quizá, en la pesca harían falta más economistas de los que hay, para que pudieran analizar también con mayor fundamento estas cuestiones.

Dicho esto, le deseo a la Comisión gran éxito en este debate y espero que el modelo de gestión, que ha sido un fracaso, pueda ser modificado en un futuro.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, em nome do Grupo PSE. – Queria felicitar a Senhora Attwooll pelo esforço notável que fez para que o seu relatório fosse tão consensual quanto possível. Trata-se de uma matéria complexa e controversa, mas de extrema importância para todos os que se preocupam com a sustentabilidade dos recursos, mas incluindo nesse conceito a sustentabilidade do recurso mais precioso de todos que são as pessoas que integram as inúmeras comunidades piscatórias da Europa.

Daí que a abordagem equilibrada do relatório, ponderando diferentes perspectivas, me pareça perfeitamente acertada. O resultado da votação na Comissão das Pescas – 21 votos favoráveis num universo de 24 – comprova bem o que acabo de dizer. Mas, tão importante como não fugir a este debate seria a tomada de decisões precipitadas. Como Deputado eleito num Estado-Membro onde a pequena pesca e as pescarias multi-específicas que predominam no Sul da Europa são muito importantes, preocupa-me a implantação de sistemas de gestão que impliquem a transacção de direitos, que podem traduzir-se em benefícios para os armadores com maior poder de compra em detrimento dos mais pequenos.

Temo igualmente que a adopção generalizada de tal sistema possa ter efeitos contraproducentes, podendo mesmo conduzir a capturas mais elevadas para compensar o custo de aquisição do direito de pesca. Reitero, por isso, o meu apoio à conclusão global do relatório, que vai no sentido de que não seja adoptada qualquer decisão sem que disponhamos de estudos que cubram a totalidade dos Estados-Membros e os diferentes tipos de pescarias, sem que tenha lugar um debate mais alargado que permita ponderar todas as variáveis desta questão.

  Pedro Guerreiro, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Gostaria de iniciar esta intervenção com o reconhecimento do empenho da relatora, Sra. Attwooll, na elaboração de um relatório equilibrado sobre uma questão tão fundamental como a soberania dos Estados-Membros na gestão dos seus recursos haliêuticos e a criação de direitos de propriedade privados para o acesso à exploração deste bem público.

No entanto, apesar de valorizarmos o ponto 11 do relatório, este integra um conjunto de considerações de que frontalmente discordamos, como, por exemplo, o encarar este debate enquanto passo prévio para a necessária alteração da actual política de gestão dos recursos ou o incluir pontos que, de forma mais ou menos explícita, pugnam pela adopção de mecanismos de gestão baseada nos direitos de pesca ao nível comunitário.

Consideramos que cabe a cada Estado-Membro a gestão dos seus recursos marinhos, designadamente como forma de garantir a sua soberania alimentar, por isso rejeitamos um qualquer processo faseado que leve à futura criação de um sistema comunitário de gestão baseado em direitos de pesca, isto é, na comercialização de licenças, dias de pesca ou quotas, que conduzirá necessariamente à apropriação e concentração privada da exploração de um bem público.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, this is a complex area and I certainly commend Ms Attwooll for her report and her efforts in that regard.

Representing a region whose overall experience of the common fisheries policy has been far from positive, I must say that my natural inclination is strongly against the imposition of any EU-based management system. Rather, I am quite clear that Member States should be able to decide what management system works best for them.

Moreover, maintaining stability, I fear, could be severely jeopardised in the industry if unregulated transferable quotas were embraced, with particular threat to single and small-scale operators. It would be better by far in my book to repatriate real powers over fishing to Member States and concentrate on getting in place viable local management systems capable of enjoying the confidence of those affected.

I also fear that this new study will prove to be another protracted excuse for putting off real and helpful change. I hope that does not prove to be so, but we have seen that in the past.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). – Também eu associo as minhas palavras àquelas dos colegas que felicitaram a nossa relatora Elspeth Attwooll e gostaria de dizer que, na minha opinião, o património natural marinho deve ser preservado e deve ser sustentavelmente utilizado pelas comunidades piscatórias que tradicionalmente com ele interagem e não pode ser visto como um negócio como outro qualquer. Nesse sentido não partilho de uma visão que lê os ecossistemas marinhos e as comunidades piscatórias que com eles interactuam como um mercado, em que os direitos de pescar stocks de peixe podem ser livremente transaccionados, eventualmente mesmo em bolsa, levando naturalmente à industrialização da actividade e colocando em risco o equilíbrio quer dos ecossistemas, quer das comunidades piscatórias. Mais do que isso, parece-me que o princípio da estabilidade relativa não pode ser de forma alguma colocado em causa e por esta razão acho que a Comissão deveria ter a máxima das cautelas neste debate.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I would like to thank Ms Attwooll for her work and welcome this report as it has initiated a much-needed debate on alternative management measures.

I strongly agree with the report when it points out that the current fisheries management systems within the EU, specifically in the area of TACs and quotas, do not provide an answer to our problems, and that it is necessary to hold a wide-ranging debate.

In its green paper on the reform of the common fisheries policy, the Commission states that: ‘Alternative management mechanisms can play a significant complementary role in Community fisheries management.’ However, I would venture to suggest that alternative management measures should and must play a compulsory role in the future, as we need to take on board a range of factors, including climate change and up-to-date marine and fisheries research based on sound science.

As I pointed out in my now redundant opinion of the Committee on Fisheries for the report by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, I have no doubt that climate change will impact on EU fisheries regulations, as allocations of quotas based on historic catch patterns will need to be revised as a result of the shifting distribution of fish stocks. Furthermore, fisheries management will have to be increasingly based on adaptive approaches as historical data will be less valuable.

As climate change and other factors increasingly impact on our fish stocks, our management will need the necessary flexibility, based on sound peer-reviewed science, to adapt to the new conditions and ensure sustainability of resources.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I think that we all share a common objective: that of achieving a balance between the economic efficiency of such systems but, at the same time, protecting small fisheries.

I agree with what the rapporteur said, namely that fisheries cannot be looked at purely in economic terms. I need to stress here that the subject is far from simple. I certainly agree that such systems are a complex matter. As I said before, we have to take into account in our reflections possible limitations on the concentration of rights, the resolution of allocation issues and measures for the protection of artisanal fisheries, and we have to approach this matter gradually.

In the short term, we need to learn more, we need to identify best practices and we need to study where rights-based managements systems have operated successfully in certain Member States and look at experiences in third countries.

All this will clearly be an important issue for discussion in the context of the next reform. I certainly look forward to the input from the Committee on Fisheries on this issue. I have noted all the comments made by all the parliamentarians who have spoken on this subject.

  Elspeth Attwooll, rapporteur. − Madam President, I cannot say that I am altogether reassured by the Commissioner’s response, because it seemed to me that, in what he was saying, he was actually giving pre-eminence to one particular form of rights-based management, whereas what the report is seeking is a review of all different types of forms to assess their merits and demerits.

I think we are all agreed that the common fisheries policy is in need of reform. A newspaper in my constituency that picked up the European Parliament press release on the report cites me as being cautious about the reform of the CFP. This is certainly not so if it is taken to mean that I have any doubts about the need for reform. I am cautious, as I think we all are, to the extent of wanting to be reassured that the reform is in the right direction.

In the course of writing the report, for example, it occurred to me to ask just how compatible with one another the different ways of defining the extent of the right to fish are. My feeling was that, whilst quota and effort limitations both combine readily with territorial restrictions, neither of the first two sits that comfortably with the other. This in turn made me realise that, technical though a report on rights-based management might, on the face of it, seem, the issue it raises goes to the very heart of the common fisheries policy.

Whilst generally applauding the direction of current reform, I hope that the discussion may trigger a more radical reappraisal of the tools we use, so as to achieve the best possible balance between improving the livelihood of those engaged in fisheries, having a sustainable marine ecology in which fish stocks are conserved and maintaining the viability of fisheries-dependent communities. I would not like to think that, in advance of a thorough study, some prior decision had been taken as to what might achieve the very best balance.

  Die Präsidentin. − Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen. Die Abstimmung findet morgen, am Donnerstag, statt.