Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

It-Tlieta, 21 ta' April 2009 - Strasburgu

22. Sistema Komunitarja ta' kontroll għall-iżgurar tal-konformità mar-regoli tal-Politika Komuni tas-Sajd (dibattitu)

  Le Président. - L'ordre du jour appelle le rapport de Raül Romeva i Rueda, au nom de la commission de la pêche, sur la proposition de règlement du Conseil instituant un régime communautaire de contrôle afin d'assurer le respect des règles de la politique commune de la pêche (COM(2008)0721 - C6-0510/2008 - 2008/0216(CNS)) (A6-0253/2009).

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, Ponente. − Señor Presidente, quería empezar por recordar que hace unas semanas Greenpeace denunció ante la Fiscalía española que una empresa gallega, Armadores Vidal, había estado recibiendo subvenciones del Gobierno español, concretamente por valor de 3,6 millones de euros, entre 2003 y 2005, a pesar de que esta empresa acumula desde 1999 numerosas sanciones en varios países por pescar ilegalmente en medio mundo.

La Comisión, de hecho, ha estado denunciando este asunto últimamente.

La semana pasada empezó la temporada de pesca del atún rojo. Los científicos nos dicen que hace tiempo que ya hemos superado los límites aceptables de pesca sostenible de esta especie en claro riesgo de desaparición.

Estos días, la Ministra española de Defensa se encuentra en Somalia dirigiendo el operativo de protección de la industria atunera desplegada en el Índico, frente a los ataques de la piratería.

Si los atuneros europeos tienen que alejarse tanto de sus casas para trabajar se debe, primero, a que los stocks más cercanos están a punto de colapsar y, segundo, a que contamos con una flota excesivamente subvencionada y claramente sobredimensionada que busca rentabilidad a costa, incluso, de acabar con el principal elemento que sustenta su actividad, los peces.

El problema común en todos estos casos –y en otros muchos– es, una vez más, la sobrepesca, la sobredimensión de la flota europea y, sobre todo, la falta de control y de capacidad sancionadora.

Por ello defendemos en este informe que la aplicación no discriminatoria y efectiva de las normas debe ser uno de los pilares fundamentales de la Política Pesquera Común.

Por ello pedimos, por ejemplo, que se prohíba explícitamente dar ayudas públicas a quien actúe de forme ilegal, como es el caso de Armadores Vidal.

El cumplimiento de las normas y la adopción de un enfoque coherente constituyen la mejor manera de proteger a largo plazo los intereses del sector pesquero.

Dicha política está condenada al fracaso si los agentes del sector pesquero, desde la gente de mar hasta los comerciantes que venden el pescado a los consumidores, no cumplen con las normas. Las poblaciones de peces están condenadas a desaparecer junto con quienes dependen de ellas.

La Comisión y el Parlamento Europeo hemos lamentado en varias ocasiones el bajo grado de cumplimiento y hemos pedido, entre otras cosas, que los Estados miembros intensifiquen los controles, que armonicen los criterios de inspección, así como las sanciones, y que los resultados de las inspecciones sean transparentes. Además, hemos pedido también que se fortalezcan los sistemas de inspecciones comunitarios.

La propuesta de reglamento motivo de este informe aborda la necesaria reforma del régimen de control existente y plantea una serie de recomendaciones que hay que añadir a las ya existentes tras la aprobación del Reglamento sobre pesca ilegal, no declarada y no reglamentada –la pesca «you-you»– o del Reglamento relativo a la autorización de las actividades pesqueras.

Probablemente la cualidad más importante de un sistema de control que se aplica a 27 Estados miembros consiste en que todas las partes sean tratadas por igual y, sobre todo, que todos los agentes de la cadena de producción –pescadores, intermediarios, compradores, personas vinculadas al sector de la pesca recreativa y otros– sientan que no están siendo discriminados, pero también que tienen su parte de responsabilidad en este aspecto.

Debe asegurarse, por tanto, la igualdad de condiciones en toda la Comunidad pero también en toda la cadena de custodia.

La propuesta que presentamos –en todo caso, apoyamos también en gran parte a la propuesta original de la Comisión– incluye una serie de aspectos que permitirían avanzar considerablemente en esta dirección.

Yo quiero mencionar simplemente, como aspecto señalado, la necesidad de que la Agencia Comunitaria de Control de la Pesca tenga un papel especialmente importante que desempeñar, dada su naturaleza comunitaria y su mandato de imparcialidad.

Por ello espero que las enmiendas que hemos presentado a última hora, para acabar de concretar el informe, sean aceptadas por el resto de los colegas como ya ocurrió en el debate que tuvimos en comisión y espero, efectivamente, que sea un instrumento útil para salvar a quienes debemos salvar, que son no solamente los stocks, sino las poblaciones que viven de ellos.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all allow me to thank the rapporteur, Mr Romeva i Rueda, who has undertaken some impressive work on this report. What is even more noteworthy is the fact that the rapporteur has undertaken to meet with numerous international and Community stakeholders in several capitals. This file was complex and delicate. The Commission would like to thank Mr Romeva i Rueda for his work on this report.

As you know, the current regulation on fisheries control dates back to 1993. It has since been amended a dozen times, in particular in 1998, to include the control of fishing effort, and in 2002 on the occasion of the last reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP). However, the resulting system has serious shortcomings that prevent it from being as effective as it should be. As both the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors have highlighted, the current system is inefficient, expensive, complex, and it does not produce the desired results. This in turn undermines conservation and effort management initiatives. Control failures thus contribute to the negative performance of the common fisheries policy.

The main aim of the control reform is to ensure the respect of the CFP rules by building a new standard framework which will enable the Member States and the Commission to fully assume their responsibilities. It establishes a global and integrated approach to control, focusing on all aspects of the CFP and covering the whole chain of catch, landing, transport, processing and marketing – ‘from catch to consumer’. In order to achieve this, the reform is built on three axes.

Axis 1: the creation of a culture of compliance and responsibility of the sector. The aim of this objective is to influence the behaviour of all stakeholders involved in the wide range of fishing activities in order to achieve compliance through not only monitoring and control activities, but as a result of an overall culture of compliance where all parts of the industry understand and accept that playing by the rules is in their own long-term interest.

Axis 2: instituting a global and integrated approach to control and inspection. The proposal ensures uniformity in the implementation of the control policy, while respecting the diversity and the specific characteristics of different fleets. It establishes a level playing field for the industry by covering all aspects from capture through to the market.

Axis 3: the effective application of CFP rules. The reform also aims to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of Member States, the Commission and the Community Fisheries Control Agency. Under the CFP, control and enforcement are the exclusive competence of the Member States. The role of the Commission is to control and verify that the Member States are implementing the CFP rules correctly and effectively. The current proposal does not try to change this allocation of responsibilities. However, it is important to rationalise procedures, and to ensure that the Commission has the means to actually see to it that the Member States equally implement CFP rules.

I would also like to emphasise the fact that the proposal will reduce administrative burdens and make the system less bureaucratic. The Commission’s impact assessment found that if the reform is adopted, the total administrative costs for operators could be reduced by 51% – from EUR 78 to EUR 38 million – largely through the use of more modern technologies, such as the extension of the use of ERS, VMS and AIS.

Existing paper-based tools will be replaced at all stages of the fisheries chain – i.e. logbook, landing declarations and sales notes – except for vessels below 10 metres overall length. For fishermen, the electronic system will make it easier to record and communicate data. Once the system has been introduced, a number of reporting requirements will be removed.

The system will be quicker, more accurate, less expensive and will allow for the automated processing of data. It will also facilitate cross-checking of data and information, and the identification of risks. The result will be a more rational and risk-based approach to control actions at sea and on land, the latter being inherently more cost-effective.

The proposal will also remove the current obligation on Member States to transmit lists of fishing licenses or fishing permits to the Commission, which will instead be made accessible by electronic means to the national control services, to those of other Member States, and to the Commission.

Now turning to the report, I would like to comment on the amendments proposed.

The Commission welcomes the fact that the European Parliament supports the legislation in principle and considers that a new control regulation is necessary. Whilst the Commission can go along with certain amendments that are in line with the discussion within the Council working group, it considers it fundamental to retain certain key elements of the proposal.

The Commission can agree with an important number of amendments, in particular Amendments 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 to 18, 26 to 28, 30, 31, 36, 44, 45, 51 to 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 66 to 69, 82, 84, 85, and 92 to 98.

The Commission cannot, however, accept the following amendments, which could be summarised as follows:

Concerning the monitoring of fishing activities: Amendment 23 modifies the margin of tolerance to be applied to logbook catch entries to 10%, instead of 5% as in the proposal. This will seriously affect the accuracy of the logbook data that is essential when using such data for cross-checks. Since such cross-checks will be used to identify data inconsistencies as indicators of illegal behaviour on which Member States should concentrate their scarce control resources, this amendment would also negatively affect the operation of the computerised validation system foreseen in Article 102(1) of the proposal which is considered to be the backbone of the new control system. The most important argument is, however, that fishermen can indeed estimate their catches within an accuracy level of 3%. After all, fish is stored and transported in boxes and they know how much weight of fish a box can hold.

Regarding Amendment 29 on prior notifications, the Commission believes that the idea to reserve the granting of exemptions to the Council would complicate enormously the procedure and would not allow for timely reactions to developments on the ground.

The Commission also finds that the reallocation of unused quotas is a management matter that should be dealt with in the context of the CFP reform. Thus, Amendment 41 on corrective measures cannot be accepted.

On transhipments of stocks subject to multiannual plans, Amendment 42 deletes the entire Article 33. This is not acceptable because, as you know, transhipments have been used in the past to conceal illegal catches. For that reason it is essential to maintain Article 33 and that quantities to be transhipped are weighed by an independent body before they are taken on the transport vessel.

Amendment 47 deletes the entire section on real-time closure of fisheries. By accepting this, the Commission would lose a very important instrument for the protection of stocks. Real time closures are directly linked to control issues. Therefore, this amendment cannot be accepted.

Amendment 102 is not acceptable since it deletes the article on the ability for the Commission to close fisheries if so required by the Commission. A similar provision exists already in the current control regulation, and it is a necessary tool to ensure that, if a Member State fails to close a fishery, then the Commission is entitled to close that fishery in order to ensure the respect of quotas – and this we did last year for the bluefin tuna and the year before for cod in the Baltic Sea.

Similarly, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 103, which deletes the provisions on corrective measures. This would weaken the role of the Commission as the guardian of EU law ensuring that all Member States are able to take full advantage of their fishing opportunities. Moreover, this provision already exists in current legislation.

As regards new technologies: concerning the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and the Vessel Detection System (VDS), Amendment 19 foresees the entry into force of these electronic devices for vessels between 10 and 15 metres as of 1 July 2013, instead of 1 January 2012, as laid down in the proposal. Amendment 20 foresees that the installation of VMS devices and electronic logbooks is eligible for funding, with 80% cofinancing from the EU budget.

Regarding Amendment 19, the proposal already provides for a transition period, as this obligation would only apply as of 1 January 2012, whereas the entry into force of the regulation is foreseen for 1 January 2010. Since the new control system intends to make the best possible use of modern technologies, in order to develop an efficient automated and systematic system of cross-checking, it is important that these provisions apply on the date foreseen in the proposal, so as not to further delay the implementation of the new approach to control.

Regarding the concerns on the cost of introducing these new technologies, the cofinancing by the Commission is already available under Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, which establishes cofinancing rates, and in the framework of this Regulation the Commission will consider increasing such rates. It would, however, go against the budgetary rules to lay down in another legislative act the rates for cofinancing.

Concerning recreational fisheries: on this controversial subject, I would like to indicate that, in contrast to what has been widely reported, the draft regulation does not aim to place a disproportionate burden upon individual anglers or on the leisure fishing industry. What is proposed is to subject certain recreational fisheries on certain specific stocks, namely those subject to a recovery plan, to certain basic conditions on permits and catch reporting. These requirements will also help to obtain information allowing the public authorities to evaluate the biological impact of such activities and, where necessary, to prepare the measures needed.

Concerning the EP report, the Commission welcomes the fact that a definition of ‘recreational fisheries’ is provided for in Amendment 11, and that Parliament foresees that, where a recreational fishery is found to have a significant impact, catches should count against the quotas. It also welcomes the fact that the EP agrees that the marketing of catches from recreational fishing shall be prohibited except for philanthropic purposes. However, I would like to stress that it is important to maintain an obligation for Member States to evaluate the impact of recreational fisheries as set out in Amendment 93, and not just the possibility to do so as contemplated in Amendments 48, 49 and 50.

The Commission, of course, wants to ensure that the final regulation adopted by the Council achieves a fair balance between, on the one hand, obtaining accurate information on the impact of recreational fisheries on recovery stocks – following a case by case analysis – and, on the other, ensuring that recreational fishers, whose catches clearly have a negligible biological impact, are not burdened with disproportionate requirements.

Concerning sanctions and enforcement: Amendment 64 inserts a new Article 84(2a) indicating that as long as a holder of a fishing authorisation has been given ‘penalty points’ the holder should be excluded from receiving EU subsidies or national public aid during that time. The Commission cannot accept this amendment. In the same vein, Amendment 61 cannot be accepted.

In fact Article 45, point 7, of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing already provides the possibility to ban offenders temporarily or permanently from access to public assistance or subsidies. To introduce such a rule additionally in the context of the penalty point system would be disproportionate.

Amendment 107 deletes the minimum and maximum levels of sanctions proposed by the Commission. This is not acceptable, since comparable sanctions in all Member States is an important element to achieve the same degree of deterrence in all Community waters and thus create a level playing field through the establishment of a common framework at the Community level. The provision does not affect the discretion of Member States to determine which infringements are to be characterised as serious.

Concerning the powers of the Commission: Amendment 71 imposes the presence of an official of a Member State during inspections carried out by the Commission, and in the same vein, Amendment 108 limits the possibility for the Commission to carry out inquiries and inspections only in cases where a Member State has been previously informed. The capacity of the Commission to undertake autonomous inspections would be seriously affected when officials of the Member State concerned have to be always present during inspections. By not providing an official, the Member State concerned could even prevent an autonomous inspection from taking place.

Amendments 104, 108, 109 and 110 are also problematic since they restrict the competencies of Community inspectors, restrict their ability to perform autonomous verifications and autonomous inspections. Without such competencies for Community inspectors, the Commission cannot ensure the same quality of application of CFP rules in all Member States.

Amendment 72 takes away the basis according to which Community financial assistance can be suspended or cancelled when there is evidence that provisions of the regulation have not been complied with. The Commission cannot accept this amendment. With this amendment the simple conclusion by the Commission that the Member State concerned has not taken adequate measures would be sufficient to take measures against that Member State.

On the other hand, Amendments 111 and 112 limit the competence of the Commission to suspend Community financial assistance. This would seriously undermine the capacity of the Commission to apply this measure. Furthermore, the amendment does not clarify who, instead of the Commission, is supposed to take such a decision.

Concerning the closure of fisheries: Amendment 73 limits considerably the cases in which the Commission will be able to close a fishery for failure to comply with the objectives of the common fisheries policy. ‘Evidence’ of non-respect will be much harder to prove than ‘reason to believe’. In order to ensure that the rules of the CFP are equally applied in all Member States and to avoid a particular threat to sensitive stocks, it is important that the Commission has the possibility to close a fishery when the relevant Member State fails to do so itself. In the same vein, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 113, which proposes to delete this article.

Amendments 74 to 78 reduce substantially the pressure on Member States to respect national quotas. Acceptance of these amendments would simply mean maintaining the status quo. The amendments reduce substantially the possibility for the Commission to take measures to ensure that Member State fishers do not fish on a regulated stock for which the Member State has no quota or has a small quota. This would be particularly detrimental in cases where such fishing effectively prevents other Member States from fishing their quotas.

Amendments 79 and 80 delete Articles 98 and 100, which give the Commission the possibility of deducting quotas and to refuse quota exchange for failure to comply with the objectives of the CFP. The Commission wishes to maintain this provision, which is an important instrument, to ensure the respect of the CFP rules by Member States. It responds to the recommendation of the Court of Auditors to reinforce the capacity of the Commission to put pressure on Member States. It will also help demonstrate to national fishing industries that the respect of the CFP rules by their national administrations is also in their interest, and they can be expected to exert a positive pressure on their national administrations to that effect.

Amendment 114 proposes the deletion of Article 101 on emergency measures. The Commission cannot accept this amendment since this provision is an important instrument to ensure the respect of the CFP rules by the Member States.

I would once again like to thank Mr Romeva i Rueda for the report and the committee for the attention it has given to this very important issue. This report is a significant contribution to a truly efficient control system. I would like to apologise for taking up so much time.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez, en nombre del Grupo PPE-DE. – Señor Presidente, Señor Comisario, hay una primera objeción mayor que plantear a esta propuesta, y es su absoluta falta de consulta con el sector.

Es inadmisible que la Comisión siga proclamando que toda su política pesquera se basará en el diálogo con las partes interesadas y que sea justo a la hora de redactar el reglamento que más graves consecuencias inmediatas tiene para la flota cuando se hurta al sector ese diálogo y esa consulta previa.

Mal comienzo para intentar instaurar esa cultura del cumplimiento que tanto repite la Comisión. Muy discutible es también el momento elegido.

Si bien es verdad que la política de control es uno de los fallos más clamorosos de la Política Pesquera Común, también lo es que la Comisión la mantiene desde 1993, y se decide a modificarla justo cuando presenta los trabajos previos para una reforma de la PCP que anuncia una revisión profunda del sistema de conservación y gestión.

Puesto que el control es parte indisoluble de cualquier sistema de gestión, mucho más razonable hubiera sido coordinar ambas reformas sin correr el riesgo de que la de 2012 deje obsoleta esta propuesta, algunas de cuyas medidas no van a entrar en vigor, como pronto, hasta ese mismo año 2012.

Estos dos errores mayores desvirtúan lo que podrían haber sido grandes aciertos, como los intentos de armonizar las infracciones y las sanciones y el objetivo de responsabilizar de una vez a los Estados miembros ante las evidentes faltas de voluntad política para aplicar las medidas de control.

Sólo me queda, señor Presidente, dar las gracias al ponente por su trabajo y siento que tengamos tan poco tiempo para trabajar en una materia tan importante.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, em nome do Grupo PSE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caros Colegas, o relatório do colega Romeva, que felicito pela sua abertura, tem como principal objectivo assegurar o respeito das regras na política comum de pescas.

O respeito por estas regras e uma abordagem europeia das pescas constituem a melhor forma de zelar pelos interesses do sector. Se todos os agentes do sector – da tripulação a bordo até aos comerciantes que vendem o peixe – não respeitarem as regras, a sobrevivência destes estará condenada. Contribuição para o fracasso será também a tentativa de aplicação de regras europeias sem reflectir a diversidade das frotas europeias.

Por isso propus uma mais adequada adaptação da proposta da Comissão à realidade das frotas artesanais – embora gostasse de ir mais longe – de menor dimensão, existentes um pouco por toda a União Europeia, designadamente nas RUP, sem nunca esquecer que uma política comum de pescas necessita de adequadas medidas de controlo.

Por várias vezes, enquanto relator para o orçamento das pescas, lamentei um insuficiente grau de cumprimento das regras europeias, tendo solicitado, designadamente, um melhor controlo por parte dos Estados-Membros, a transparência dos resultados das inspecções, o reforço da política comunitária de inspecção, desde que acompanhados por medidas financeiras de apoio ao sector.

É certo que gostaríamos de ir mais longe, mas não posso deixar de felicitar o relator pela proposta e pelas medidas que apresentou, esperando do Sr. Comissário uma resposta cabal a este assunto.

  Elspeth Attwooll, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, beyond congratulating Mr Romeva i Rueda on his report, I would like to address the content in the wider context of the common fisheries policy.

In the last 10 years I have heard many criticisms of it, including the lack of a level playing field, insufficient stakeholder involvement, inadequate balancing of economic, social and environmental imperatives and too much by way of micro-management from the centre.

Recently, though, I have been able to assure people that the policy is undergoing significant change. Of course there is still a long way to go – eliminating discards, for example – and there are times when the Commission still seems to veer towards micro-management. I mention here Article 47 of the control regulation, at least in its original version. I have often said, though, that the common fisheries policy is a bit like an oil tanker: it takes a considerable time to turn round, and I do believe that the control regulation will go a long way to achieving the necessary level playing field where enforcement and sanctions are concerned, just as the development of regional advisory councils shall do much to bring improvements in other respects.

So I would like to finish on a personal note, by expressing my appreciation of the valuable work done by members of the Fisheries Committee throughout and by thanking Commissioner Borg and his team for all that has been achieved in their five years at the helm.

  Pedro Guerreiro, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhor Presidente, Portugal abrange o território historicamente definido no continente europeu e os arquipélagos dos Açores e da Madeira. A lei define a extensão e o limite das águas territoriais, a zona económica exclusiva, e os direitos de Portugal aos fundos marinhos contíguos. O Estado não aliena qualquer parte do território português ou dos direitos de soberania que sobre ele exerce.

O artigo 5.° da Constituição da República Portuguesa não podia ser mais claro. Daí, em consonância e pugnando pelo respeito do consagrado na lei fundamental de Portugal, termos apresentado uma proposta de alteração que estabelece que a presente proposta de regulamento respeita e não coloca em causa a competência e a responsabilidade que incumbe aos Estados-Membros quanto ao controlo do cumprimento das regras da política comum das pescas.

No entanto, as alterações da Comissão das Pescas, apesar de alguns pontos minimizarem aspectos negativos da inaceitável proposta da Comissão Europeia, não salvaguardam princípios que consideramos centrais.

Nomeadamente, entre outros gravosos e inadequados aspectos, é inaceitável que a Comissão tenha a competência de efectuar inspecções sem aviso prévio e de forma independente nas zonas económicas exclusivas e território dos Estados-Membros, possa de forma discricionária proibir as actividades de pesca e suspender ou anular pagamentos da assistência financeira comunitária de um Estado-Membro ou que um Estado-Membro possa inspeccionar os seus navios de pesca na zona económica exclusiva de qualquer outro Estado-Membro sem a sua autorização.

Termino recordando o que este mesmo Parlamento aprovou: a importância do controlo na gestão das pescas, cuja competência é dos Estados-Membros. Esperemos que, uma vez mais, não dê agora o dito por não dito – aliás como, infelizmente, tem sido seu hábito.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I must declare an interest in this subject. I am a lifelong keen sea angler, as are most of my family. I enjoy this because it is one of the last basic freedoms that we have. We can go onto the beach or out in our boats, catch a few fish and take them home to eat.

Now, for some years, recreational sea anglers have been lobbying for their sport to be included as part of the CFP. I have said for years, ‘be careful what you wish for’. Well, now it has happened and it is called Article 47, and it is called this Maltese Commissioner, Joe Borg. There are over one million of us in Britain: we are conservation-minded; we are sensible. We do not need regulating, Mr Borg, by the likes of you. That is why we need an outright rejection of Article 47 because nothing else will do. If you get this power, you can come back year after year. We may say now that beach angling has been exempted, but once it is under the auspices of people like you, Mr Borg, you can come back next year or the year after and start to regulate it.

As far as boat angling is concerned, the door with all of this is open for everybody being required to have licences and to report. Any mini-victory that we feel that we won at committee stage by changing the words ‘Member States shall’ to ‘Member States may’ start to collect this data is lost: I am afraid, with Defra back home, I feel they will take any opportunity to use EU rules to control us in any way that they can.

Sea angling needs encouragement. We should be building offshore reefs. We should be recognising – as the Americans have done – the enormous economic impact that it can have. Instead, we have a common fisheries policy that has been an environmental disaster already. It is prejudiced against the British working fleet and it will now ruin sea angling in Britain if we give this man, and people of his ilk, power. So, Commissioner Borg, my advice is ‘sling your hook’!

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). - Monsieur le Président, merci pour Sète. Il y a effectivement des ressources halieutiques, un nouveau système de contrôle dont nous discutons ce soir, mais il y a surtout les pêcheurs, leur métier, leur vie, et pêcheur, c'est le plus dur métier du monde. Ce n'est pas fonctionnaire ou député et ça façonne des hommes libres, mais aujourd'hui désespérés, d'où les révoltes des thoniers en Méditerranée, à Sète, au Grau-du-Roi ou des pêcheurs en colère à Boulogne, en France.

Nous leur réglementons la pêche depuis 1983, soit 26 ans. Mais, dès le traité de Rome, les articles 32 à 39 sur la PAC les concernaient aussi, et le tout premier règlement communautaire sur la pêche était de 1970. Cela fait 39 ans que nous légiférons: sur le choc de l'arrivée de l'Espagne en 1986, du Danemark en 1993, les filets maillants, dérivants, les agents de pêche, les TAC, les quotas, les aides, la restructuration des flottes, la modernisation.

Nous légiférons sur les sanctions, les repos biologiques, les stocks, les rejets, les systèmes de surveillance, les hommes, les espèces, les cabillauds, les merlus, les thons rouges, et même les accords internationaux. Et maintenant, la pêche récréative! Et ça ne marche toujours pas. L'Europe bleue est de plus en plus grise.

Pourquoi? Parce que la pêche fait partie du défi alimentaire planétaire du XXIe siècle, c'est au niveau mondial qu'il va falloir la gérer. Comme la crise financière, les pandémies, le climat, l'immigration, la grande criminalité, les poissons sont des altermondialistes.

Ils ne respectent ni les frontières, ni le droit communautaire. L'Europe est trop petite pour réglementer la ressource pêche et, du Pérou au Japon, de Moscou à Dakar, l'Irlande, Valencia, il va falloir des règlements de la copropriété planétaire de la ressource halieutique. C'est la voie, Monsieur le Président, que Bruxelles devrait contribuer à prendre.

  Le Président. - Bien, après cette marée verbale, la parole est à M. Stevenson.

  Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE). - Mr President, you are probably aware that two fishermen, a father and son, from Northern Ireland, who fish out of Peterhead, have been jailed in Liverpool after being fined GBP 1 million and that the Assets Recovery Agency, which is an agency normally used for measures against drug dealers and gangsters, was utilised to hammer these two working fishermen, who, admittedly, were involved in landing illegal catches, which no one would condone – but to treat working fishermen, even guilty of that offence, as criminals, as gangsters, in the same way as we would treat drug dealers, is appalling. This proves why we definitely need some measure to introduce a level playing field as is contained in Mr Romeva i Rueda’s report, because a similar offence in some parts of the EU would probably merit a fine of just EUR 2 000 or EUR 3 000.

I want, however, to use the remainder of my time to talk about Article 47, not surprisingly, because I believe that there is a need to differentiate between the word ‘shall’ and the word ‘may’ as contained in Amendments 93, 48, 49 and 50. We won considerable support in committee for my amendment that contained the word ‘may’, but now you have informed us, Commissioner, that you would reject that in any case, so it seems we have been wasting our time.

I do hope you will consider this again. If a Member State does not think it is necessary to pursue this course of action, I hope you would respect the subsidiarity principle.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). - Herr talman! Som EU-skeptiker känner jag ofta en viss skadeglädje när olika EU-institutioner kommer med orimliga och löjliga förslag som artikel 47. Sådana förslag bidrar till att undergräva den omotiverade respekt som många medborgare i EU-länder känner inför EU:s strävanden – strävanden att flytta makten från demokratiska medlemsländer till ett byråkratiskt Bryssel. Kampen mot centralisering och byråkrati underlättas därför av sådana förslag. Samtidigt tar jag emellertid min roll här i Europaparlamentet på allvar. Vi måste stoppa denna utveckling, och jag hoppas att en majoritet av kammarens ledamöter känner likadant. Om inte, så hoppas jag att en majoritet åtminstone känner fruktan för väljarnas dom i början av juni och därför inser att de i eget välförstått intresse måste säga nej till detta förslag. Om subsidiaritetsprincipen inte ens kan förmå EU att hålla tassarna borta från sportfisket i Stockholms skärgård, då är framtiden mörk för det europeiska projektet.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). - Mr President, I would like to tell the Commissioner that I too favour ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. I am a co-signatory as well.

The whole culture of compliance with the common fisheries policy will not be established until we have equity and fairness at the centre of the inspection policy and of subsequent proceedings taken against our fishermen. We do need, as this regulation proposes – and as the rapporteur also says – Community-level control and compliance which the needs of this situation reflects, while leaving ultimate responsibility to Member States.

At the moment it is appalling that fines range from EUR 600 to EUR 6 000 for similar offences in different Member States. There is no respect at all for the common fisheries policy, which is commonly agreed to be a flawed instrument. We do not need this at the centre of it.

On Article 47, recreational fishing, I welcome the definition, which was missing in the draft proposal. We need a commonsense reaction. Yes, Member States can evaluate if there is serious impact on quotas of vulnerable stocks, but we should not let it be the rule of thumb. It must be the exception and not the rule. Please move on discards – it is immoral and totally unacceptable that we are criminalising our fishermen. We must not encourage by-catches, but we must not criminalise fishermen for landing them either. Get the balance right, please, Commissioner Borg.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). - Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, esta sua proposta é absolutamente fundamental. Quem ler o relatório do Tribunal de Contas sobre o estado do controlo da política comum das pescas não pode ter alguma dúvida de que esta iniciativa da Comissão Europeia era absolutamente indispensável.

Mas não é menos verdade que o nosso relator fez aqui um trabalho absolutamente excepcional, e conseguiu ter em conta muitas das características específicas – nomeadamente da pequena pesca – e teve em conta algumas das nossas sugestões. Eu gostaria de felicitar muito o trabalho exemplar que ele fez.

Mas eu gostaria de dizer que sou pela subsidiariedade. Só que não pode haver subsidiariedade no controlo se não há subsidiariedade na lógica da política comum das pescas.

E é esse o desafio que o Sr. Comissário tem pela frente na reforma da política comum das pescas, e eu desejo-lhe muito empenho e muitas felicidades para cumprir esse desafio que é essencial para toda a pesca na Europa.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for this interesting debate. Clearly we are equally strongly aware of the need for a meaningful reform of our control systems.

Let me try to touch on a number of points that have been raised, first of all with regard to the question concerning recreational fisheries. As I said, this is a very contentious topic, probably the most contentious of all the control provisions contained in the proposal.

However, it has given rise to a number of misconceptions as to what the real objective and purpose of the provisions is. I said that we are prepared to accept the definition that is proposed in one of the amendments.

I will be setting out clearly our position on the definition and on the proposed regulation of recreational fisheries in the coming days, including by writing directly to the anglers’ representatives in order to spell out the objectives, the parameters and the details concerning recreational fisheries.

Then, I hope, I will be receiving feedback from them and, if necessary, we will look into the provisions in order to make them more finely-tuned to the only objective that we need to target.

We have a significant problem with recovery stock. There are certain recreational activities which impose big pressures on such recovery stock and we need to address this point.

This is only fair for the professional fishermen that we address this. Otherwise we can never hope to turn the situation around if there is pressure from a significant fishing effort, even though it is carried out in a recreational manner and no earnings are derived from it. The stock cannot hope to recover if there is significant effort, as scientific reports have indicated to us.

(Interjection from the floor: ‘No science for that at all!’)

Concerning the total lack of consultation of the sector, I think that we have consulted the industry. I myself took part in such a conference in Scotland some time ago. All RACs have submitted their opinions and, furthermore, as in any other legislation, we organised a public Internet consultation. The sector was specifically consulted in the framework of the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the course of 2008.

Concerning the point made on small-scale vessels, the Commission believes that the small-scale fleet can have a significant impact on resources. This is the reason why there is no general exemption for this fleet in the proposal.

However, the proposal provides specific exemptions for certain categories of vessels, in general those under 10 metres, and in particular on the VMS, on log book, on prior notification and landing declarations. In this regard, the proposal respects the principle of proportionality.

Financial aspects are also taken into account at the level of EU cofinancing of up to 95% of the costs for those electronic devices, to help the stakeholders to use the new technologies. Exemptions will be examined further within the final Presidency compromise.

I would also like to say, with regard to the points made by Mr Guerreiro, that many of the points that he mentioned already exist in the existing control provisions. Therefore, were we to take up the amendments that he suggests, we would actually be moving backwards with regard to control and enforcement, rather than strengthening the provisions that need to be strengthened.

We are seeking a level playing field in the sanctions provisions as contained in the proposed regulation. Obviously we are prepared to look into them further in order to see whether there needs to be further fine-tuning, but the main objective of the provisions on sanctions in the proposed regulation is to ensure that there are no significant discrepancies, such as exist today, between sanctions given by certain Member States, or by the judicial authorities of certain Member States, and sanctions that are given by the judicial authorities of other Member States.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr Farage for his confidence shown in my staying here for a second term!

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, Ponente. − Señor Presidente, quiero dedicar estos últimos dos minutos de intervención a dar las gracias.

En primer lugar, a la Comisión, no solamente por el trabajo y la oportunidad: yo creo que, efectivamente, siempre es difícil plantear una cuestión de estas características y de esta dimensión, pero creo que era necesario, al menos, abrir el debate. Lo ha hecho con valentía y, lógicamente, siempre habrá quien piense que nunca es el momento, pero creo que, al menos, el debate ha servido y servirá para que se pongan claras algunas de las dificultades que tenemos para regular más y mejor ese sector.

En segundo lugar, quiero dar las gracias al resto de ponentes, de ponentes en la sombra, porque, efectivamente, como se ha visto en el debate, partimos de puntos de vista muy distintos y hemos hecho un gran esfuerzo por llegar a transacciones.

Quiero reconocer el esfuerzo que han hecho todas y todos en este trabajo. El punto final al que hemos llegado es posible que no sea el que cada una y cada uno de nosotros quisiéramos. Por ejemplo, en cuanto al margen de tolerancia, yo estoy de acuerdo con la Comisión, o sea, a mí me parece que el 5 % ya era suficiente. El 10 % forma parte de esta transacción, porque había otros colegas que iban mucho más allá.

Lo mismo ocurre con la posibilidad de ampliar o, en todo caso, prorrogar el plazo de puesta en práctica del sistema electrónico.

También quiero recordar, porque a veces se olvida, que esto no supondrá un coste adicional. En todo caso hay recursos especiales para ello por parte de la Comisión.

Y en relación con el último aspecto, quizás el más polémico pero no necesariamente el asunto central de esta resolución, la cuestión de la pesca recreativa, quiero insistir en un aspecto, que es el de la no discriminación. Si aquí no entendemos que todos tenemos que asumir nuestra parte de responsabilidad, es muy difícil que consigamos el resultado esperado.

En la negociación conseguimos una transacción que era, lógicamente, difícil, pero que era, para mí, bastante aceptable. Sin embargo, fuera del acuerdo quedó esa cuestión sobre si teníamos que realizar de forma voluntaria o de forma obligatoria el estudio sobre el impacto que pudiera tener la pesca recreativa.

Pienso que, al menos, dado que se están planteando algunas excepciones para el sector recreativo, sería bueno que existiera una posibilidad de compromiso –más que una obligación, un compromiso– por parte de los Estados a facilitar la información necesaria, porque, insisto, la responsabilidad o es compartida o al final todos, también el sector recreativo, se van a ver afectados por la falta de control.

  Le Président. - Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu mercredi 22 avril 2009.