Doslovný záznam ze zasedání

Pondělí, 12. prosince 2011 - Štrasburk

13. Dohoda mezi EU a Marokem o partnerství v odvětví rybolovu – Budoucí protokol o rybolovných právech a finančním příspěvku stanoveném v Dohodě o partnerství v oblasti rybolovu mezi Evropskou unií a Marockým královstvím (rozprava)

  Przewodniczący. − Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest wspólna debata nad:

- sprawozdaniem sporządzonym przez Carla Haglunda w imieniu Komisji Rybołówstwa dotyczącym zalecenia w sprawie projektu decyzji Rady w sprawie zawarcia Protokołu między Unią Europejską a Królestwem Maroka ustalającego uprawnienia do połowów i rekompensatę finansową przewidziane w Porozumieniu o partnerstwie w sektorze rybołówstwa pomiędzy Wspólnotą Europejską a Królestwem Maroka (11226/2011 - C7-0201/2011 - 2011/0139(NLE)) (A7-0394/2011),

- pytaniem ustnym do Komisji dotyczącym przyszłego protokołu ustalającego uprawnienia do połowów i rekompensatę finansową przewidziane w Porozumieniu o partnerstwie w sektorze rybołówstwa pomiędzy Unią Europejską a Królestwem Maroka, które to pytanie zadali Carl Haglund w imieniu grupy ALDE i Carmen Fraga Estévez w imieniu grupy PPE (O-000319/2011 - B7-0671/2011).

  Carl Haglund, rapporteur. − Mr President, I will take the opportunity to present both issues at the same time – as you proposed. Allow me to start with the resolution that my dear colleague Carmen Fraga Estévez and I have drafted together. It concerns a resolution on the current arrangement with Morocco, something that has been debated several times in this House especially over the past year.

I am happy that we have come to a point in time where we have been able to agree among many groups on the content of this resolution. I know there are some alternative resolutions, but the main message remains: that Parliament wants to see a better agreement with Morocco in the future, and I am happy that, together, we have been able to identify that the current arrangements with Morocco are desirable. However, they need to be economically and ecologically far more sustainable than they are today. So I am happy with the resolution. I am sure that there will be a broad majority in support of the resolution. My colleague Carmen Fraga Estévez will probably get back on this.

Concerning my report on the same issue: we have been dealing with this topic in the Committee on Fisheries for a long period of time and – in light of the resolution, which clearly states that the current arrangements are not very good – I would like to explain why we need to vote against this report.

When I say ‘against’, I think it is important to note at this point in time that my initial recommendation for the Committee on Fisheries was not to consent to this agreement. The reasons are very well outlined in the brief resolution. A fisheries partnership agreement – and I say a ‘partnership’ agreement – should be viewed as a fisheries ‘partnership’ agreement, something which benefits both parties. Unfortunately, as we can see from the very good ex-post evaluation report, we have an agreement in front of us that is economically far from sustainable. The evaluation report states very clearly that, of all the fisheries partnership agreements, this places the heaviest burden on European taxpayers.

Practically speaking, the return on the agreement is negative. Many agreements have a positive return with about a 40% positive return, while this one has a negative return with only 65 cents return on every euro invested. This is a very bad deal for European taxpayers. On top of this, of course, there are the ecological aspects and I actually find them far more troubling.

The basic principle of fisheries partnership agreements is that we fish the surplus; in other words fish which is there to be fished and not over-fished. Therefore it is disturbing to note that out of the eleven fish stocks covered by the agreement – we have only been able to assess nine of the eleven as two of them lack data – nine fish stocks are over-fished. In other words, we are not fishing the surplus; we are fishing more than the surplus, which is ecologically unsustainable and goes against the basic principle behind these EU agreements which we have laid out in the common fisheries policy. This is also a reason why we need change.

With these things explained, I think it is quite clear that we need to pass the resolution to show our Commissioner – who is sitting right there – that she has our backing for a new agreement, but at the same time a better agreement which takes into account all the problems outlined in the ex-post evaluation report.

I also want to take the opportunity to say that from Parliament’s point of view, working on this dossier has not been the easiest because of timing and because of the new arrangement where Parliament is obliged to consent to these agreements. This is an arrangement which came with the Lisbon Treaty; it is both an obligation and a responsibility for us as Members of this House to actually examine these agreements.

In light of what I have done and in light of what the two committees who took the opportunity to give an opinion on this agreement have done, it is clear that we should not accept the current arrangements. That is why we should vote ‘no’. I can tell you that the Committee on Development and the Committee on Budgets both gave opinions on my report; both recommended for us not to consent to the current arrangements. I think that is a very strong signal from both the Committee on Development and the Committee on Budgets.

In the Committee on Fisheries we had a very tight vote which ended up in favour of the report, and I am sure we will have a tight vote also on Wednesday when we vote on the actual issue. But I urge all colleagues to take the responsibility which the Lisbon Treaty gives us, and examine the current arrangements very thoroughly and at the same time note the fact that we are calling for a future agreement with the Moroccans. This should not be seen as a hostile move towards our partners; it should rather be seen as us taking ourselves seriously on a very important issue.

Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues for their good cooperation on this issue. I am aware that all of us do not share the same approach, but I want to thank colleagues for a constructive dialogue so far and I am sure we can handle this issue in a constructive manner despite certain differences. I will end my speech here.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez, Autora. − Señor Presidente, si estamos hoy en esta situación de prórroga del Acuerdo de pesca con Marruecos es solo porque la Comisión no cumplió en su día con su obligación de pedir un mandato de negociación o bien de denunciar el Acuerdo con la debida antelación, si es que se estaba incumpliendo. La flota pesquera nada tiene que ver con esto; no es responsable ni tiene por qué pagar las consecuencias. Así pues, soy firme partidaria de solucionar esta situación dando la aprobación.

No estoy de acuerdo con los que se oponen, bien por la cuestión política del Sáhara, bien por los resultados negativos del informe de evaluación pesquera. Al respecto, me gustaría recordar que ya en el año 2006, con motivo de mi informe sobre el Acuerdo de pesca Unión Europea-Marruecos, esta Cámara fue muy firme tanto respecto a los beneficios que debían recaer en las poblaciones del Sáhara como denunciando una negociación nefasta cuyos vacíos son los que han provocado los malos resultados.

Pero —insisto— no creo que ninguno de estos problemas se vaya a resolver ahora enviando la flota a casa. Por el contrario, creo que debemos mirar al futuro de nuestras relaciones pesqueras con Marruecos.

Y, señora Comisaria, nuevamente nos encontramos en una situación en la que, a menos de tres meses de la finalización de la prórroga, seguimos sin tener un mandato de negociación. Nuevamente el sector se encuentra sumido en la incertidumbre, pero, esta vez, nos ha tomado la delantera y ha actuado responsablemente junto con el sector pesquero marroquí y, con la aquiescencia de sus respectivas administraciones, ambos han elaborado un plan de acción para el futuro, que, la semana pasada, le entregaron a usted en Bruselas.

Esta es la razón por la que el señor Haglund, en nombre del Grupo ALDE, y yo, en nombre de mi Grupo, hemos presentado una pregunta oral y una propuesta de resolución que miran al futuro, un futuro asentado sobre nuevas bases que intentan paliar los errores cometidos y que cuentan con el acuerdo de todas las partes interesadas.

Solo pido que la Comisión esté...

(El Presidente interrumpe a la oradora)

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, I welcome the opportunity to share with you my assessment referring to the current situation and my views on the future of our fisheries agreement with Morocco. Let me start first with the interim protocol. You are now going to decide whether or not this protocol can be concluded. The lead committee has adopted a positive recommendation, but I know that many of you are not convinced, so let me explain our position.

As you know, this one-year protocol – an interim protocol – was agreed with Morocco in February this year, just before the previous one expired. I am convinced that this decision was right. I believe even now that we have done the right thing. Why? Because the interim protocol provided us with the time to address those legal and political issues which are related to fishing in the waters of the Western Sahara.

We have pressed Morocco to provide us with reliable information that the local population benefits from the exploitation of these waters, as is required by international law. These efforts have given some potentially positive results. For the first time, the current protocol includes a formal requirement for Morocco to report on benefits and their geographic distribution, and in so doing it sets an important precedent for any future protocol.

With regard to economic and environmental issues, the mandate to extend the previous protocol did not leave us much room for manoeuvre during the last round of negotiations. In other words, we really did not have the possibility to go for a better agreement referring to economic and environmental issues. However, it is clear that any future negotiations will have to result in a better deal. After all, this interim protocol made it possible for fishing activities to continue without interruption.

I know that a lot of you are not convinced about this, but I would just like to remind you that this is really important for some hundreds of European vessels fishing there, most of which are small-scale vessels.

On the basis of a decision taken by the Council in July, the protocol is now being applied provisionally. Indeed, there is less than three months left before it expires at the end of February next year. So I can understand that your rapporteur, Mr Haglund, and Ms Fraga Estévez and others are not happy that Parliament is able to express itself only now. But this is not our fault. We have done everything possible to speed things up. In any event I am glad that Parliament has proceeded to this plenary vote without further delay. I can assure you that the outcome is of great importance to all of us. In any case, we are going to respect Parliament’s vote. That is something I would like to make absolutely clear. Your vote next Wednesday will be respected by us.

Let me also assure you that we are taking very seriously the comments made in Mr Haglund’s report, as well as the issues he raises and the issues raised in your motion for a resolution arrived at today. So in the case of any agreement, we have to significantly improve the text with regard to environmental, economic and legal/political aspects.

Let me say here a few words on recent developments in Morocco and on the state of relations between the European Union and Morocco, against which your decision today should also be judged. The winds of change that have affected the Southern Mediterranean and some countries beyond have touched Morocco too. So what is the Commission’s assessment of this? The Commission assessment is that, in Morocco, the authorities have launched a significant process of reform with the elaboration of a new constitution, increasing democratic accountability and respect for human rights as well as the successful holding of parliamentary elections which have brought new forces to power. The European Union, at all levels, has welcomed these changes. This House has also called for the EU to support the process of democratic reform in Morocco. That is the framework we have to bear in mind when making our decisions.

As I said in the Committee on Fisheries last month, the Commission is in the process of preparing a proposal to the Council for a new negotiating mandate. At first we thought of waiting for your vote on Wednesday, but then we understood that it would be too late for our preparations and too late for you to vote on the substance. That is why we have already worked towards taking this initiative, in order to be ready in case this House gives us a positive signal to go forward on Wednesday. So we have done the preparations. If you give your consent to the interim protocol, we are ready to go forward.

What are the main parameters of this better deal with Morocco that we should be aiming at? First, on economic profitability. We are definitely seeking value for money. It is imperative that any new protocol should ensure a better utilisation of available fishing possibilities as well as an overall financial envelope that clearly reflects market value, as other committees of this House are asking for. Second, on environmental sustainability. This means that we will be defining fishing possibilities based on best available scientific advice and also that we will be targeting only the surplus. Third, on international legality. With regard to the issue of the waters off Western Sahara, we will fully respect international law. There are a number of options on how to achieve this. We are working on all of them. If we were to follow the option of including the waters off Western Sahara, then we would need to demonstrate, through a strict and rigorous reporting mechanism, that there are economic benefits for the regions and local populations concerned. This would become a condition in the new protocol.

On all these issues, we will draw on the conclusions from the implementation of the present protocol as well as from the debates in this House. The Committee on Fisheries last month recommended that Parliament consent to the conclusion of the protocol. If that approach is followed by this House, then we will very soon be ready to move ahead towards a better protocol to this agreement.

  Isabella Lövin, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. − Mr President, in the middle of the Sahara, Morocco has built a 2 700-kilometre-long wall which is the longest wall in the world after the Great Wall of China and is guarded by 120 000 soldiers and millions of landmines. It will also become the world’s longest conveyor belt, transporting phosphate resources out of the territory.

Morocco took the country of Western Sahara in 1975 using napalm and phosphorus bombs. That was an attack on a people abandoned by their Spanish colonisers and was a contravention of international law. The fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco, including the waters of the Western Sahara, is in fact illegal. This has been established by the legal services of this House in a recent opinion, which overrules the previous legal opinion of the Commission, which was written before it was possible to establish two things – firstly, if the EU was actually fishing in Western Sahara and, secondly, whether or not the financial payment was to the benefit of Western Sahara and if the fishing had the consent of the people of that territory.

There are now two answers to those questions – 74% of the EU fleet capacity does operate in the waters of Western Sahara, and the people of this region have not been consulted on the matter. I have seen the answers to these questions, which Morocco gave to the Commission one year ago. They make it one hundred percent clear that Morocco is not going to recognise there is even such a thing as Western Sahara. They do not even mention Western Sahara.

This makes one other thing very clear – namely that Morocco does not need this agreement. Morocco has a domestic fleet that is bigger than that of Spain. They have the national fisheries policy objective of tripling fisheries’ contribution to GNP, doubling domestic employment and increasing domestic consumption of fish. In 1999, Morocco terminated the EU fisheries agreement for those very reasons, and because of the EU over-fishing that is now also taking place. It is extremely clear that Morocco only wants to keep the fisheries agreement with the EU for one reason: to legitimise Morocco’s illegal occupation of Western Sahara by making the EU an accomplice in this criminal act.

It would be shameful to this House and to the entire European Union if we, as a proponent of human rights and defenders of international justice and democracy, gave our consent to this shameful agreement.

  François Alfonsi, rapporteur pour avis de la commission des budgets. − Monsieur le Président, la commission des budgets a souhaité que le Parlement refuse d'approuver l'accord de pêche entre l'Union européenne et le Royaume du Maroc. Je tiens à préciser que ce refus serait, en réalité, sans incidence pratique, car cet accord est intervenu en février 2011; il expire donc dans un mois. La commission des budgets a d'ailleurs rejeté une proposition qui visait à supprimer l'engagement budgétaire lié à cet accord pour l'année à venir.

Cependant, par cet avis négatif, la commission des budgets a voulu lancer un message d'alerte. Cet accord entraîne des conséquences négatives au plan environnemental, car ces zones de pêche sont notoirement surpêchées, et au plan de la régularité juridique de la dépense, dans la mesure où la question de la décolonisation du Sahara occidental est toujours bloquée par l'État marocain, alors que la zone de pêche concernée est, pour les trois quarts, liée à ce littoral.

Le refus d'approbation de ce protocole – si le Parlement suit le vote de la commission des budgets – serait un message fort lancé à la Commission en vue des futurs accords à négocier et un message fort lancé au gouvernement marocain pour que, au moment où toute la rive sud de la Méditerranée s'éveille à la démocratie, il s'engage à son tour sur la voie des réformes et de la démocratie, notamment vis-à-vis du peuple sahraoui.

  Alain Cadec, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, je vais d'abord m'exprimer sur le protocole provisoire.

En tant que rapporteur fictif de mon groupe, je voudrais adresser un message au rapporteur: j'espère que, sur le rapport relatif au financement des affaires maritimes et de la pêche, – dont je suis le rapporteur et dont M. Haglund est rapporteur fictif –, nous pourrons discuter plus régulièrement que sur le présent rapport.

Je lui rappelle et je lui redis que je suis et que j'ai toujours été ouvert à la discussion sur tous les sujets sur lesquels nous avons travaillé et travaillerons encore ensemble, je l'espère.

L'accord de pêche actuellement en vigueur entre l'Union européenne et le Maroc est une prorogation – nous l'avons déjà dit – d'un an de l'accord précédent, proposée par la Commission européenne. Cet accord prendra fin – je vous le rappelle – le 27 février prochain, c'est-à-dire dans deux mois. Monsieur Alfonsi vient de le dire. Il permet à dix États membres de l'Union européenne de pêcher dans les eaux marocaines et profite, qu'on le veuille ou non, aux populations locales. L'aide sectorielle versée par l'Union européenne permet le développement de la politique de la pêche sur tout le territoire marocain.

J'appelle mes collègues à voter en faveur de cet accord car il est mutuellement bénéfique. Son approbation permettra l'ouverture des négociations sur un nouvel accord de pêche, assorti de nouveaux critères. En revanche, un refus de cet accord serait un signal très négatif pour toute cette région, en période de démocratisation. Le Maroc est un partenaire indispensable de l'Union européenne. Le soutien de l'Union européenne passe non seulement par des déclarations – il y en a beaucoup ici – mais aussi par des accords et des actions concrètes.

Avec la résolution de notre groupe et du groupe ALDE sur le futur accord, nous donnons un signal fort à la Commission pour négocier un accord qui soit rentable et écologiquement viable, et qui permette une bonne utilisation des possibilités de pêche pour l'Union européenne. Mais auparavant, je vous le rappelle, nous devons voter l'accord provisoire.

  Ulrike Rodust, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das Fischereiabkommen zwischen der Europäischen Union und Marokko beschäftigt dieses Haus nun schon seit mehr als einem Jahr. Ich bin mir sicher, dass dies auch nach der morgigen Abstimmung so sein wird. Dieses Abkommen hat sich zu einem sehr emotionalen Thema entwickelt. Das ganze Parlament spricht über dieses Abkommen, alle Fraktionen haben intern in den letzten Tagen und Wochen das Abkommen kontrovers diskutiert.

Es handelt sich um ein Fischereiabkommen, das genau analysiert werden muss. Wie lautet diese Analyse? Wir im Fischereiausschuss sind uns einig darüber, dass dieses Abkommen ökologisch nicht nachhaltig ist, denn es trägt zur Überfischung bei. Das ist in der bisherigen Debatte leider untergegangen, aber es ist ein ganz zentraler Punkt. Angesichts des katastrophalen Zustandes der Weltmeere darf die Europäische Union nicht ihre eigenen und erst recht nicht fremde Gewässer überfischen. Auch ökonomisch ist dieses Protokoll nicht interessant. Es gibt auf keinen Fall eine Win-win-Situation für uns. Darüber hinaus gibt es noch die Westsahara-Frage. Ich bin mir sicher, dass wir uns auch hier einig sind: Das Abkommen muss im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht stehen.

All dies ist in dem derzeit laufenden Protokoll, über das wir abstimmen werden, nicht gegeben. Deshalb kann man eigentlich nicht zustimmen. Nun werden wir damit getröstet, dass sich in Zukunft alles ändern soll. Darauf hoffe ich auch, und wir helfen mit unserer Entschließung dem Rat und der Kommission gerne dabei, bei den Verhandlungen mit Marokko nichts verkehrt zu machen. Der einzige überzeugende Grund zuzustimmen ist, dass wir kurz vor dem Auslaufen des Protokolls sind und die Kommission uns gebeten hat, keine Unterbrechung herbeizuführen, um die neuen Verhandlungen nicht zu belasten. Sie versicherte uns, dass alle unsere Forderungen in das neue Protokoll Eingang finden werden. Das erwarte ich nicht nur, sondern wir verlassen uns auch darauf.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the Commissioner must excuse us if some of us feel outrage at the existing agreement. You only have to look at the evaluation study to recognise its faults. The study makes absolutely clear that this is the least successful of all the bilateral fisheries agreements agreed by the European Union. It is one under which our taxpayers are paying EUR 36 million a year – for what? Very little. The fish we land does not even end up in the European Union: it goes down to Africa or gets sold on to the Asian market. The ship-owners – there are 80 ships, more or less, on a constant basis there – are paying just EUR 2 million. That is a subsidy of extraordinary proportions.

Not surprisingly, when we look at the issue of sustainability and we recognise that these fishermen are fishing in waters which are described as ‘fully-exploited’ or ‘over-exploited’, there are questions here about the whole sustainability aspect.

I think we can have confidence that the Commissioner will do her very best to negotiate a new arrangement which meets the criteria of sustainability and the social requirements referred to in the declaration. She can also have a smile on her face, as she was not responsible for negotiating the appalling arrangement we have in place at the moment.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor Presidente, obviamente yo me opongo no solamente a la extensión del Acuerdo actual, sino a un nuevo acuerdo, y las razones se han mencionado ya; son de tres tipos: de carácter jurídico, económico y ecológico.

Jurídicamente la cuestión es simple. Marruecos negocia con unos recursos que no le pertenecen, y a partir de aquí hay dos opciones: o bien se excluyen las aguas de los territorios saharauis de la negociación —lo cual no se ha hecho hasta ahora—, o bien se respeta la ley internacional exigiendo que este Acuerdo respete los beneficios para la población local, pero también los deseos, señora Comisaria, los deseos de la población local, a la que nadie todavía se ha referido.

Desde el punto de vista económico, también es evidente que es un desastre como acuerdo porque no supone, en ningún caso, un beneficio, y además es un despilfarro económico, y más en situaciones como en las que estamos, pero ecológicamente es todavía más grave.

Estamos en una situación donde los acuerdos deberían respetar una máxima: solo explotar niveles de sobrepesca o de excedente. En el caso de las aguas marroquíes, estamos en una situación de sobrepesca ya con la pesca local, a la cual añadimos esta sobrepesca a la que contribuimos parte de los europeos.

Por lo tanto, tres elementos para votar en contra de la ampliación y de un nuevo acuerdo, que son elementos jurídicos, económicos y ecológicos. Y, por una vez, creo que sería bueno que este Parlamento no se arrodillara ante las presiones y los chantajes del Gobierno marroquí y que actuara en consecuencia con responsabilidad y, sobre todo, para garantizar su credibilidad.

  João Ferreira, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Com a proposta de prorrogação deste acordo a Comissão é apanhada na curva apertada das suas próprias incoerências e contradições. A Comissão encomendou e pagou a uma empresa de consultoria externa uma avaliação ex post dos quatro anos de vigência do acordo.

A avaliação realizada é manifestamente negativa, seja do ponto de vista económico, tendo em conta a utilidade do acordo para as frotas dos Estados-Membros, seja do ponto de vista ecológico, tendo em conta o periclitante estado de conservação de diversos stocks, seja do ponto de vista do impacto positivo no sector pesqueiro marroquino, como noutros casos, extremamente reduzido ou nulo.

Perante o resultado desta avaliação veio a Comissão dizer que o relatório não veicula necessariamente a posição da Comissão. Mas não contrapôs, como se exigia, a análise que ali é feita, os dados objectivos que a permitam desmentir. Mas a questão mais grave deste acordo, que justificou que estivéssemos contra ele em 2005 e que, da mesma da forma, justifica que estejamos hoje também contra ele é que se trata de um acordo ilegal à luz do direito internacional.

Com efeito, o acordo assinado com Marrocos prevê a exploração de um recurso natural sobre o qual Marrocos não tem soberania à luz do direito internacional. Desde 1975, com o parecer do Tribunal Internacional de justiça, até hoje, nunca a soberania de Marrocos sobre o território do Sara Ocidental foi reconhecida. Ao incluir as águas do Sara Ocidental, este acordo desrespeita todas as resoluções relevantes da Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas, em especial a Resolução de 2009 relativa às actividades económicas e outras que afectem os interesses dos povos dos territórios não autónomos.

Saliente-se que os legítimos representantes do povo sarauí nunca foram ouvidos sobre este acordo, foram completamente ignorados neste processo, tal como a sua vontade. E esta é uma obrigação decorrente, ao contrário do que disse a Senhora Comissária, esta é uma obrigação decorrente do direito internacional, e não apenas contentarmo-nos com as afirmações de Marrocos que dizem que há benefício para as populações do Sara Ocidental com este acordo.

Devo dizer que não temos uma posição de princípio contra os acordos de pesca com países terceiros. Pelo contrário, temos apoiado, apesar das múltiplas limitações e insuficiências, vários deles. Mas estes acordos devem resultar da livre expressão da vontade soberana dos países e dos povos envolvidos e não dar cobertura ao saque de recursos naturais como aqui sucede. Saque com o qual, lamentavelmente, a União Europeia assim se torna cúmplice. A única solução neste cenário, quanto a nós, será a exclusão das águas do Sara Ocidental deste acordo e o início de um processo de diálogo com os legítimos representantes do povo sarauí...

(O Presidente retira a palavra ao orador.)

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, Morocco has occupied Western Sahara since the 1970s. If this fisheries deal goes ahead, the EU will be in breach of international law. We know it, the UN knows it, and even Parliament’s legal services know it. The financial contribution to Morocco will be EUR 36 million every year for EU boats to plunder overfished stocks. The Commission has provided no assurances that the Western Saharan people will benefit from this deal, and I have no doubt that the money will be hoovered up by the Moroccan authorities. Despite all this, the Commission does not care and wants its deal. UK boats that operate in the area go to great lengths to make sure local people benefit, so it would be a shame for them to be disrupted.

This all demonstrates the failure of EU control over UK fisheries and trade. I am appalled that the Liberal Democrat political group tried to cancel this public debate and submitted a resolution that urges the Commission to close the deal as quickly as possible. This whole issue shows just how little the EU cares for democracy and human rights around the world.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Chris Davies (ALDE), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I would just like to ask the Honourable Gentleman what evidence he has that the Liberal Democrat Group, under the leadership of our rapporteur Carl Haglund, tried to cancel this debate? I believe that is not true.

  John Stuart Agnew (EFD), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I understand that the coordinators wanted to go straight to the Chair and have no vote, which seems a funny way of going about democracy.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE). - A dimensão externa da PCP em geral, e os Acordos de Parceria com os países terceiros em particular, constituem uma vertente imprescindível da PCP. E o acordo UE-Marrocos é um dos mais importantes para a frota europeia do Sul, surgindo numa ocasião política em que é importante não fechar portas.

Com efeito, os acordos de parceria viabilizam a presença da frota comunitária em pesqueiros externos, tradicionalmente frequentados pela União Europeia e indispensáveis para a obtenção de importantes produtos da pesca que contribuem para assegurar o abastecimento alimentar da Europa. Simultaneamente, desempenham também um papel preponderante nas economias dos países terceiros e no seu respectivo desenvolvimento social.

Exige-se, entretanto, que a acção da União Europeia, ao nível internacional, seja coerente com os princípios e objectivos da PCP, nomeadamente a sustentabilidade e a preservação dos ecossistemas marinhos. Neste contexto, o novo acordo de pesca sustentável entre a União Europeia e Marrocos deverá ser orientado por uma gestão sustentável dos recursos haliêuticos através de uma cláusula de transparência que assegure que a exploração dos recursos efectuada por navios comunitários em águas de países terceiros se circunscreva apenas aos recursos que estes não podem, ou não pretendem, capturar.

Assim sendo, o novo acordo UE-Marrocos deverá dispor de uma base científica credível e de um método eficaz de acompanhamento e vigilância da sua aplicação, salvaguardando o interesse da frota comunitária, dos ecossistemas e das populações locais que o acordo deverá também beneficiar. Neste plano, e em termos gerais, não posso deixar de lamentar que os elevados padrões de actuação da União Europeia, a que se propõe, de respeito pelas populações locais e de salvaguarda do seu património haliêutico não sejam comuns a outras frotas que por vezes fainam nessas mesmas águas, o que, aliás, acontecerá de forma selvagem se a frota europeia se retirar.

  Guido Milana (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, pessimo accordo, pessima proroga e pessimo risultato della gestione di questi anni: queste sono le parole chiave di questo dibattito!

Ebbene, dobbiamo archiviare questa fase. Se La Commissione – o per meglio dire, la Commissaria che non ha trattato questo accordo – ci invita ad approvare l'accordo, dobbiamo lasciarci alle spalle questa fase e soprattutto pensare al nuovo, a ciò che accadrà nei prossimi anni!

Non so se convenga – a uno come me che difende la causa Sarawi da molti anni – non avere più nessun rapporto con il Marocco. Non possiamo sostituire l'accordo, la cui assenza non ci porterebbe a risolvere il conflitto che va avanti da oltre trent'anni.

Sono musica per le mie orecchie le parole della collega Lövin, con la quale concordo pienamente, anche se non ritengo l'accordo di pesca il mezzo attraverso il quale risolvere la questione. Non riusciremo certo noi a trovare una soluzione dove l'ONU da trent'anni mantiene una missione che non risolve per nulla tutte le questioni di carattere umanitario.

Allora diciamo sì alla risoluzione, sì alla proroga di questo accordo, perché la risoluzione deve dar forza alla Commissione e spingerla a trattare in maniera dura, per fare in modo che il nuovo accordo risponda davvero a queste esigenze e perché questo sia anche un segnale alla politica estera dell'Unione. Non è più possibile che la Baronessa Ashton non si occupi della questione Sarawi!

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). - Včeraj sem se vrnil iz Tindufa, kjer sem videl, kakšne koristi ima prebivalstvo Zahodne Sahare od naše politike in od vseh, ki trdijo, da sprejemajo sporazume v korist tega prebivalstva. Ta sporazum je treba zavrniti in odločno plediram na to, da ga zavrnemo z moralnimi, političnimi, etičnimi in mednarodnopravnimi razlogi.

Ta sporazum ni običajni ribiški sporazum. To je sporazum, v katerega mreže se bo ujelo mednarodno pravo in pravičnost. To je sporazum, ki žali dostojanstvo tega naroda Zahodne Sahare, ki trpi pod maroško okupacijo. Zato se ne moremo pogovarjati o njem kot o nekem rutinskem sporazumu o ribah. To je sporazum o politiki in mi bomo na napačni strani, če bomo glasovali za njega.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). - Caros Colegas, vamos votar um acordo muito especial porque parte do seu objecto é um território ilegalmente ocupado, tal como as Nações Unidas já o determinaram. Isto quer dizer que não estamos a falar dos recursos naturais só de Marrocos, que são objecto deste acordo, mas dos recursos naturais de um povo que não tem direito – ou que não tem tido direito – à sua autodeterminação.

Enquanto deputado português este caso não pode deixar de me fazer lembrar o caso de Timor-Leste em que a União Europeia, repetidamente, censurou a Austrália por estar a negociar com a Indonésia os recursos naturais de um país que estava ilegalmente ocupado. Nenhum deputado que aqui defendeu, nesta casa, a causa timorense pode votar com a consciência tranquila um acordo deste género, que faria da União Europeia a receptadora de recursos que não são seus e que não são do país com quem negoceia e que faria de nós cúmplices de um roubo que até agora ainda não foi ressarcido, que até agora ainda não foi corrigido.

Não pode haver nenhum tipo de acordo sobre recursos naturais de um povo que não teve direito à sua autodeterminação enquanto esse povo não puder falar acerca dos seus recursos.

  Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE). - Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, es evidente que algo falla cuando hoy, en el mes de diciembre, debatimos una prórroga que finaliza en apenas dos meses.

Pese a ello, estamos hablando de un Acuerdo que es importante para la Unión Europea y especialmente para España, un Acuerdo que no puede servir de disculpa para reivindicaciones distintas de las estrictamente pesqueras y con cuya prórroga yo estoy de acuerdo a pesar de que el Acuerdo es insatisfactorio en muchos aspectos.

Siempre he defendido los acuerdos con terceros países, y mucho más con países de nuestro entorno y tan importantes como es el Reino de Marruecos, y, precisamente por ello, espero que se ratifique la prórroga y que se negocie un nuevo acuerdo equilibrado, justo y beneficioso para todos los firmantes y que permita a nuestra flota seguir faenando.

Confío en que llegue este acuerdo y en que, además, sea viable económicamente y no solo garantice la sostenibilidad y la preservación de los recursos, sino que tenga consecuencias positivas desde el punto de vista social y laboral para los firmantes.

Ahora bien, también defiendo con contundencia que los acuerdos se deben respetar y cumplir en su integridad y, por eso, con coherencia, cuestioné el acuerdo con Marruecos en el ámbito agrario y lo apoyo decididamente en el pesquero.

No tenemos nada contra Marruecos, bien al contrario, pero eso no obsta a que exijamos el respeto a los acuerdos que los ciudadanos a los que representamos merecen.

Desde este Parlamento debe llegar un mensaje claro y diáfano a la Comisión para que negocie y negocie bien, sin dilaciones y con transparencia. Recuerden que malas negociaciones siempre traen malas consecuencias. Ejemplos tenemos muchos.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 149, apartado 8, del Reglamento))

  Lucas Hartong (NI), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to ask my esteemed colleague: who would profit more? All the Member States of the EU, or Spain only?

  Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), respuesta a una pregunta de tarjeta azul. – Señor Presidente, en todo caso yo creo que cuando un Estado miembro se beneficia, todos los miembros de esta Unión Europea nos beneficiamos.

  Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D). - Señor Presidente, desde el Grupo Socialista consideramos importante aprobar esta prórroga porque va a ser la piedra angular que nos permita hacer un mejor acuerdo.

Este acuerdo, que finaliza el 27 de febrero de 2012 (quedan apenas tres meses, como decía la Comisaria), se ha valorado de forma negativa desde el punto de vista económico. Sin embargo, no se ha valorado la importancia que tiene que 11 países de la Unión Europea —lo digo por la pregunta que se acaba de formular— se beneficien de este acuerdo y que 800 trabajadores de la Unión Europea tengan un puesto de trabajo gracias al mismo, así como que haya creado miles de puestos de trabajo en Marruecos, e incluso en el Sáhara.

La sostenibilidad como parte importante. Se ha hablado del informe ex-post. Nosotros pedimos datos científicos para el próximo acuerdo que determinen la capacidad pesquera, porque la Unión Europea, según ese informe ex-post, solo pesca el 10 % de lo que se pesca. Según el informe, tiene un impacto inapreciable.

Se necesita un nuevo acuerdo, señora Comisaria, un nuevo acuerdo mejorado, un nuevo acuerdo bajo el Tratado de Lisboa, un nuevo acuerdo —como ha dicho usted— con ese requisito adicional de un informe detallado acerca de cómo se aplica el acuerdo y cuál es la población beneficiada, acerca del cumplimiento del Derecho internacional. Pero, además, el acuerdo tiene que ser beneficioso para ambas partes.

La arquitectura global: es necesario que la Unión Europea dé preponderancia al Acuerdo de asociación entre la Unión Europea y Marruecos; una dimensión económica y social de los acuerdos internacionales; la solidaridad y el sector estratégico. Europa no puede quedarse atrás en la escena internacional. Son importantes la aprobación de esta prórroga y el próximo acuerdo.

  Thijs Berman (S&D). - Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, Åsa Westlund, whose plane is late.

The European Parliament’s Legal Service has concluded that the Fisheries Agreement is against international law, since the UN has never recognised Morocco’s claim over the Western Sahara. Nothing shows that the wishes of the people of the Western Sahara are being respected or that this agreement benefits them.

The Community should therefore envisage either the suspension of the agreement or should apply the agreement in such a way that EU-flagged vessels are excluded from the exploitation of the waters off Western Sahara. There are additional arguments for the European Parliament not to give its consent: the current protocol has had the lowest cost-benefit ratio of any EU bilateral agreement, and it has fostered the fishing of many depleted stocks and failed to contribute to the development of the fisheries sector in Morocco. Given these facts, the EU…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Der Präsident. − Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege Berman. Sie hätten noch viel Zeit gehabt. Wenn Sie etwas langsamer gelesen hätten, wäre es besser gewesen. Wir sollten ein bisschen Rücksicht auf die Dolmetscher nehmen, weil es sonst in anderen Sprachen nicht mehr verständlich ist, was Sie dem Haus mitteilen möchten.

  Thijs Berman (S&D). - Mr President, I am deeply sorry for the interpreters, whom I like so much.

  Der Präsident. − Ich möchte es als einen Hinweis an alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen nutzen: Wenn Sie Texte haben, lesen Sie sie bitte so, dass es in allen Amtssprachen der Europäischen Union verständlich ist.

("Catch the eye"-Verfahren)

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). - Acordul de pescuit cu Marocul nu este nicidecum un acord de parteneriat, aşa cum au remarcat toţi ceilalţi colegi. Nu este nici corect pentru Uniunea Europeană, nici nu ţine cont de protecţia rezervelor de peşte; voi vota, deci, împotrivă. Trebuie însă să spun, de asemenea, că nu este o situaţie unică. Ar fi nevoie şi chiar este urgentă intensificarea dialogului cu vecinii noştri de la Marea Neagră - mai ales cu Turcia - pe aceleaşi considerente, eventual într-un cadru instituţional special, după modelul Comisiei pentru pescuitul în Marea Mediterană.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Ich komme aus Österreich, einem Binnenland, und betrachte das Partnerschaftliche Fischereiabkommen der Europäischen Union mit Marokko daher nicht durch einen Nebel aus Eigeninteressen, sondern im Gegenteil: Ich bin an nachhaltiger, gerechter Fischerei interessiert und nicht am gierigen, schnellen Leerfischen der Meere. Ein Ja zum Protokoll würde Unrecht einzementieren. Es wäre ein Ja für eine völkerrechtswidrige, unökologische Geldverschwendung.

Über 36 Millionen Euro werden jährlich für den EU-Zugang zu marokkanischen Fischereigewässern gezahlt. Das steht in keiner Relation zu den dadurch in der Europäischen Union gesicherten Arbeitsplätzen. Dieses Geld könnte intelligenter für beschäftigungspolitische Maßnahmen ausgegeben werden. Erst wenn gesichert ist, dass die Westsaharauis den gerechten Anteil an der Fischerei vor ihrer Küste bekommen und dass das Meer nicht überfischt wird, halten wir im Europäischen Parlament uns selbst an unsere Werte und Grundsätze.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D). - Señor Presidente, el Acuerdo de pesca con Marruecos está vigente porque se ha renovado automáticamente al no haber recibido ningún tipo de objeción. Lo que ha expirado es el Protocolo que establece las oportunidades de pesca y las compensaciones. Después de recibir las informaciones, se ha prorrogado provisionalmente y ahora el Parlamento debe dar su aprobación, de acuerdo con las normas del Tratado de Lisboa.

El Grupo Socialista y yo personalmente estamos totalmente a favor por tres razones fundamentales: primero, por la naturaleza de nuestras relaciones con Marruecos, la pesca no puede ser una excepción; en segundo lugar, por el impacto que podría ocasionar una interrupción de las actividades en todas las partes, especialmente en la flota artesanal —que es la más afectada— y los trabajadores; y, en tercer lugar, porque queremos enviar una señal positiva a Marruecos y conseguir un nuevo protocolo que sea justo y equilibrado, que esté a favor del desarrollo de la pesca sostenible, y que preserve los derechos de las partes y sea mutuamente beneficioso.

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I think that I must clarify some points.

I would like to underline that the Commission is here to defend the common European interest. Our common fisheries policy is about the common European interest, so I cannot accept arguments that, in the case of this agreement, only this or that Member State fishes there. There will be other agreements whereby other Member States will fish there. Also, we are all European citizens and all of us consume fish, which is a very important part of our diet. We are the world’s leading consumers of fish and we need to have good relations with all the nations across the Mediterranean and other areas. So, please, while I understand that we are going through a very difficult time, a very difficult situation, this separatist narrative is not really fruitful.

The second point I should clarify is that the Commission does indeed care about the rights of the people. We are not saying that we do not care about the rights of the people of Western Sahara. That is why we have gone for an interim protocol; that is why we have pressed the Moroccan Government to give us data on how the local population will benefit from this agreement or other agreements. That is why we have come to you with an interim protocol. That is why we are trying to negotiate a new agreement, under all the circumstances of which you are already aware.

What we are trying to ensure, I can assure you, is that any new agreement including the Western Sahara will be introduced only on condition that we are sure that the local population will benefit from it. We do care, but please be aware that it is not easy to solve the international problem through this agreement, and the Commission cannot accept that idea.

Let us be clear on this point. I am here to explain everything to you and to say very clearly that the Commission is going to respect your vote. I would like to have a clear answer: do you want a new agreement? I can promise you that I will do my best to obtain a better agreement. A better agreement means one that is economically profitable, environmentally friendly, and in accordance with international law. It is not as easy as it would appear from some speeches here to interpret international law.

So, please, I would like to have a clear answer on this. I can see that there are different opinions. I can see that some people are against the fisheries agreements in general; others are against this agreement in any event. Some others think that we need a better agreement; yes, but after all we need a clear line.

What I can say to finish, as I have used up a lot of time, is that the Commission is already preparing a negotiating mandate for the next agreement. I can assure you that, if we negotiate another agreement, it will be better than the previous one, but we need the consent of Parliament to do so. Let us be honest and face facts: if Parliament says ‘no’ to the agreement, then we can have no agreement. I would like a clear line on this.

Referring to the past, I agree with you that the agreements we had were not economically profitable or environmentally friendly, and that is why we are going to change them. That is why we are reforming the common fisheries policy, and I hope you are going to support us in order to get this reform through the Council and its decision-making process. We need this agreement, however. That is my opinion. We need to have good agreements, but we do need agreements, as otherwise we are going to be isolated from all these areas.

  Carl Haglund, rapporteur. − Mr President, I should like to thank my colleagues for a constructive debate.

Let me say to the Commissioner that I am very happy, and I think all of us are very happy, that you are striving to have a good agreement in the future. There is no doubt, based on the debate, that this is something that we all want. I cannot, however, at all agree with the conclusion that we need to vote in favour of a terrible agreement that almost everyone seems to think is bad, just to give you a good agreement in the future. That reasoning does not work.

Our responsibility, according to the Lisbon Treaty, is to take a stance on the current protocol. We are not voting on a future protocol now; we are voting on the current protocol and the current protocol is bad. I will vote in favour of a good protocol next year if you deliver one. I promise.

There has been mention that this protocol delivers EU jobs. Let me tell you that every EU job created by this protocol is subsidised by EUR 45 000. Is that good economic policy and good spending of taxpayers’ money? No. Let me also tell you that only 15% of the sectoral support from Morocco has been used. Fifteen per cent, which means that 85% was unused. Keep that in mind.

I am very happy about the debate, which focuses on the future. I also want to do that. Our partnership with Morocco is important; we have the neighbourhood policy through which it has been concluded. I think everyone has stated very clearly – despite a few voices – that they want a good agreement in the future. That is what I have been telling the Moroccans all the time. I am happy the Commissioner is saying that. Let us focus on that.

But, before that, we need to take a clear stance, live up to our responsibilities and vote on my report – which is not on a future protocol, it is on the current protocol.

Concerning the Western Sahara, I am happy that the Commissioner is looking for different arrangements, because it is clear that there are so many colleagues in this House that find the current arrangements very problematic.

Let me also say that there are many countries in the Council who are critical: the Austrians, the Swedes, and lately the Bundestag, the Dutch, the Finns, the Cypriots, etc. are critical. So we also have a very tough debate with the Council, which is not unanimous on this.

I am looking forward to a ‘no’ vote on Wednesday.

  Der Präsident. − Die gemäß Artikel 115 Absatz 5 GO einzureichenden Entschließungsanträgeg werden zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt angekündigt.

Die gemeinsame Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet nicht morgen statt, sondern am Donnerstag, 15. Dezember, um 11.30 Uhr.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. – Die Kommission will also das für ökologisch schädlich befundene Fischereiabkommen mit Marokko verlängern, das mit gut 36 Millionen Euro jährlich nicht nur eines der teuersten Abkommen ist, sondern von dem weder der europäische Steuerzahler noch die heimische Bevölkerung profitiert. Und dann sag noch einer, die EU wird nicht von Großlobbyisten diktiert! Eine Verlängerung des Fischereiabkommens ist nicht zu rechtfertigen. Zumal beide Vertragspartner das Abkommen so auslegen, dass die fischreichen Gewässer der besetzten Westsahara einberechnet werden, denen mittlerweile Überfischung droht. Gerade vor dem Hintergrund der Wirtschaftskrise muss die EU derartige Steuerverschwendungen abstellen, die zugunsten maritimer Großkonzerne den Kleinfischern die Lebensgrundlage rauben. Wenn die EU wegsieht, züchten wir in der Westsahara gleich die nächste Generation an Piraten à la Somalia heran. Das Abkommen widerspricht UN-Seerechtsübereinkommen und Völkerrecht. Gerade die EU, die sich gern mit dem Mäntelchen von Demokratie, Menschen- und Völkerrecht deckt, tut gut daran, diese endlich selbst zu achten – egal ob bei CIA-Aktionen, im Kosovo oder in der Westsahara. Die völkerrechtswidrige legalisierte Plünderung der See vor der besetzten Westsahara durch die EU muss ein Ende haben.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), na piśmie. – Kwestia porozumienia o partnerstwie w sektorze rybołówstwa między UE a Marokiem wzbudza w Parlamencie Europejskim wiele emocji. Apeluję jednak do Państwa o rzeczową debatę na ten temat. Zgadzam się, że najbardziej kontrowersyjna jest niejasna specyfikacja terytorialna. Jednakże nie powinna ona dominować debaty i być w niewłaściwy sposób wykorzystywana w celu zablokowania porozumienia. Uważam, że dopóki kwestia statusu Sahary Zachodniej nie zostanie formalnie rozstrzygnięta na forum ONZ, porozumienie powinno być kontynuowane w obecnym zakresie.

Chciałbym tylko krótko przypomnieć, że umowa jest zgodna z prawem międzynarodowym i w żaden sposób nie narusza jego przepisów. Ponadto jest opłacalna i ekologicznie odpowiedzialna. Przynosi zyski i korzyści zarówno dla 11 państw członkowskich UE, jak i dla ludności Maroka: około 800 miejsc pracy dla europejskich rybaków, podtrzymanie tysięcy miejsc pracy w przemyśle przetwórczym i przybrzeżnym w Maroku, a także, jak podkreśla Komisja Europejska, na terenach Sahary Zachodniej. Porozumienie jest politycznie i gospodarczo potrzebne i, jeżeli jego przedłużenie zostanie odrzucone, w obliczu "arabskiej wiosny ludów" będzie to stanowiło bardzo zły sygnał do władz Maroka, które rozpoczęły już przecież proces demokratyzacji.