Fuld tekst 
Procedure : 2011/2899(RSP)
Forløb i plenarforsamlingen
Forløb for dokumenter :

Indgivne tekster :


Forhandlinger :

PV 14/02/2012 - 3
CRE 14/02/2012 - 3

Afstemninger :

PV 16/02/2012 - 8.4

Vedtagne tekster :


Fuldstændigt Forhandlingsreferat
Tirsdag den 14. februar 2012 - Strasbourg Revideret udgave

3. Flerårig plan for den vestlige bestand af almindelig hestemakrel - TAC- og kvoteforordningen for 2012 -Den fælles fiskeripolitiks bidrag til produktionen af offentlige goder (forhandling)
Video af indlæg

  El Presidente. − El siguiente punto es el debate conjunto sobre

- la pregunta oral al Consejo sobre el estado actual del plan plurianual propuesto para la población occidental de jurel y para las pesquerías de esta población, de Carmen Fraga Estévez y Pat the Cope Gallagher, en nombre de la Comisión de Pesca (O-000308/2011 - B7-0023/2012),

- la pregunta oral a la Comisión sobre el estado actual del plan plurianual propuesto para la población occidental de jurel y para las pesquerías de esta población, de Carmen Fraga Estévez y Pat the Cope Gallagher, en nombre de la Comisión de Pesca (O-000309/2011 - B7-0024/2012),

- la pregunta oral al Consejo sobre las medidas en el Reglamento sobre TAC y cuotas para 2012 que rebasan el ámbito del artículo 43, apartado 3, del TFUE, de Gabriel Mato Adrover, en nombre de la Comisión de Pesca (O-000016/2012 - B7-0032/2012),

- la pregunta oral a la Comisión sobre las medidas en el Reglamento sobre TAC y cuotas para 2012 que rebasan el ámbito del artículo 43, apartado 3, del TFUE, de Gabriel Mato Adrover, en nombre de la Comisión de Pesca (O-000017/2012 - B7-0033/2012),

- la pregunta oral a la Comisión sobre la contribución de la PPC a la producción de bienes públicos, de Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, en nombre del Grupo PPE, Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, en nombre del Grupo ECR, y Ulrike Rodust, en nombre del Grupo S&D (O-000004/2012 - B7-0029/2012), y

- la pregunta oral a la Comisión sobre la Contribución de la PPC a la producción de bienes públicos, de João Ferreira, Patrick Le Hyaric, Willy Meyer y Jacky Hénin, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL (O-000029/2012 - B7-0038/2012).


  Pat the Cope Gallagher, author. − Mr President, the main purpose of this debate is to trigger an exchange of views in plenary regarding the powers of Parliament and the Council as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty provides additional powers in the area of fisheries to the European Parliament under Article 43(2), and the establishment of long-term multiannual plans is a core pillar of the reform of the common fisheries policy. We must find a solution together with the Council for all future management plans.

In relation to horse mackerel, the management plan for horse mackerel is based on the implementation plan agreed by the Commission at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. At the summit the Commission agreed to maintain or to restore the stock to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. The subsequent proposal by the Commission was drafted in close cooperation with the Pelagic RAC, which had originally put forward a proposal.

Egg surveys for horse mackerel have been conducted every three years since 1977. However, the data collected was insufficient to allow scientists to make a full assessment of the health of the stock. The proposed management plan addresses these difficulties by establishing a formula for vessels in the horse mackerel fishery known as the Harvest Control Rule. This rule provides a mechanism for calculating an additional ceiling of maximum allowable landings of horse mackerel harvested from the defined area. The plan was expected to come into operation in 2009 but was delayed by the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. In November 2010 Parliament adopted my report by an overwhelming majority: 651 in favour and 15 against.

There were two principal issues which proved to be contentious when Parliament reviewed the dossier in 2010. Parliament overturned a previous decision to split the stock into two zones, separating area 8C located in the Bay of Biscay. It was correct to do so, as the scientific advice is clear on this matter: this is one stock which covers the entire geographical area. So as a compromise an amendment was adopted which states that the plan shall be implemented, taking into account artisanal fisheries and historical rights. This amendment was acceptable to the Council at the time and to the Pelagic RAC.

The other contentious issue referred to the Harvest Control Rule. In 2010 I met with representatives of the Belgian Presidency prior to the adoption of the report by the Committee on Fisheries. The Presidency suggested a proposal which provided the Council with a degree of flexibility in terms of the total removable amount when setting the total allowable catch in relation to the Harvest Control Rule. The proposal put forward by the Belgian Presidency was subsequently adopted by this Parliament.

So there are varying views between Parliament and Council on the Harvest Control Rule. However, the legal advice from our services is very clear. Multiannual plans are a fundamental and core aspect of the fisheries conservation tool provided for under EU law, and must be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure via Article 43(2). Regrettably the Council is yet to adopt the first reading. However, I understand that the Danish Presidency is currently pursuing a proposal put forward by their predecessors before Christmas.

The delay has forced the committee to raise this matter in frustration in plenary, and hopefully progress can be made. I appreciate that all parties are working together in good faith in an effort to progress on this important dossier.

In recent weeks informal contacts have commenced once more with the Council, which I welcome. I hope that all three institutions will take a pragmatic and a sensible attitude going forward. I believe that this will enable us hopefully to have trialogues and a second reading. I shall do all possible, in conjunction with the shadow rapporteurs, the Fisheries Committee, the Commission and the Council, to reach a satisfactory conclusion which may not necessarily – and I repeat that, may not necessarily – create a precedent for other management plans.

Can I now don for one minute my Irish cap, as I have dealt with my position on fisheries? I want to refer to the haddock quota. I take the opportunity to raise an extremely important matter which has emanated from the December Council meeting where the ministers agreed to a 200% increase in the haddock quota in area 6A off the North-West.

There has been an explosion of haddock, so Annex 3 to the Council Conclusions calls on the Commission by emergency measures to adopt the necessary catch composition requirement by mid-February to allow the fishermen to avail themselves of an increased haddock quota. It appears, however, that trawling will be the only fishing gear that may be used, and many of the small in-shore and small island and coastal vessels use gillnets which are more environmentally-friendly than any other type of gear. I therefore appeal to the Commissioner to use her influence to ensure that gillnets will be permitted under the emergency measure. Otherwise an amendment to the technical conservation measures regulation will be needed which will have to go through the co-decision procedures.

Finally, I refer to the concept of regionalisation. Measures such as the approval of gillnets are a prime example for regionalisation. These decisions must in future be taken at local level and not national level. In relation to the other matter, I confirm that we will work closely together to try and move on within the next number of weeks or months.


  Gabriel Mato Adrover, Autor. − Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, señor Ministro, créanme si les digo que, siendo esta mi primera intervención como presidente de la Comisión de Pesca ante este Pleno, me habría gustado no tener que hacerla, porque no vamos a hablar estrictamente de pesca, tampoco de TAC o de cuotas —siendo esto muy importante—, sino que me voy a referir a cuestiones de fuero.

La cuestión que planteo en nombre de la Comisión de Pesca se refiere al Tratado de Lisboa y a su correcta aplicación en materia de políticas de pesca y, como decía, va mucho más allá de una discrepancia puntual. Se trata del compromiso de las tres instituciones —Parlamento, Consejo y Comisión— de aceptar las reglas de juego de las que nos hemos dotado entre todos sobre la premisa de lo establecido en el Tratado: tomar las decisiones oportunas, cada uno dentro de sus responsabilidades, en interés de los ciudadanos europeos.

Los cambios producidos por el nuevo Tratado en el proceso de toma de decisiones en relación con la política de pesca han sido, sin duda alguna, considerables y podemos llegar a entender que se necesita un tiempo para hacer los ajustes necesarios de cara a un pleno y correcto funcionamiento de los nuevos procedimientos. Pero, desgraciadamente, la experiencia después de más de dos años desde la entrada en vigor del Tratado nos revela que son numerosos los obstáculos que —entiendo— de forma intencionada siguen poniendo el Consejo y, en algunos casos, también la Comisión, tratando de impedir que el Parlamento ejerza sus nuevas prerrogativas. Y esto es inaceptable.

Desde el Parlamento no podemos consentir, bajo ningún concepto, que por parte del Consejo se siga actuando como si nada hubiera cambiado, como si el Parlamento fuera una mera comparsa y el Tratado de Lisboa y el nuevo régimen competencial no hubieran existido nunca. Señor Ministro, señora Comisaria, les guste o no, el Parlamento no puede ser ajeno a la toma de decisiones en el ámbito de la política de pesca, ya sea interna o externa. Y no lo digo yo, lo dice el Tratado.

En esta ocasión, una vez más, el Consejo, a propuesta de la Comisión, ha querido utilizar el artículo 43, apartado 3, del Tratado, dándole un alcance, desde nuestro punto de vista, inaceptable, con la intención de eludir la participación del Parlamento en la toma de decisiones.

El procedimiento establecido en este artículo se refiere claramente al establecimiento y reparto de las posibilidades de pesca, es decir, a las decisiones relativas a los TAC y las cuotas, y única y exclusivamente a estos dos aspectos y no a toda una serie de otras medidas necesarias para la consecución de los objetivos de la política pesquera común, que se encuadrarían en lo establecido en el apartado 2 del artículo 43.

Tal y como se plantea en el preámbulo de la pregunta, medidas técnicas, como la prohibición o los periodos y zonas con restricciones, profundidades de pesca restringida y requisitos específicos en materia de artes de pesca no pueden encuadrarse, bajo ningún concepto, al amparo del artículo 43, apartado 3.

La posición del Parlamento es muy clara. La hemos venido expresando desde hace mucho tiempo: no se puede hacer una interpretación extensiva, que está en clara contradicción con el estatus de excepción. Nuestra reacción, en varios dosieres, ha sido siempre buscar medidas proporcionales. Tuvimos un enfrentamiento en el dosier Venezuela-Guayana, cuando el Consejo decidió seguir adelante sin el consentimiento del Parlamento. No tuvimos otro remedio que acudir al Tribunal de Justicia. También cuando nos enfrentamos al bloqueo por parte del Consejo de los planes a largo plazo con respecto a la caballa y a la anchoa; discrepamos y hemos elegido la primera lectura para intentar negociar seriamente con el Consejo una segunda lectura.

En relación con las regulaciones sobre los TAC y las cuotas, nosotros hemos sido aún más, si cabe, tolerantes. No se ha escapado a nuestra reacción que lo adoptado en los años 2010 y 2011, en ambos casos sobre la base del artículo 43, apartado 3, no era lo adecuado. Seguíamos insistiendo en que había que dejar pasar un tiempo prudencial para que el Consejo y la Comisión pudieran ir aunando las decisiones y que fueran funcionando de la manera más correcta. Pero, desde luego, ahora nos hemos dado cuenta de que siguen introduciendo, en este caso, un considerando sobre ciertas condiciones, funcionalmente vinculadas al establecimiento y asignación de las posibilidades de pesca, cuando claramente el concepto de condiciones asociadas, anteriormente contenidas en el artículo 20 del Reglamento, se ha omitido explícitamente en el nuevo Tratado.

Nuestros diputados han considerado que había que dejar pasar el tiempo. Sin embargo, estamos —y lo digo claramente— plenamente decepcionados porque en el año 2012, tercer ejercicio desde la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa, todavía existen grandes discrepancias entre lo que propone la Comisión y aprueba el Consejo, por una parte, y lo que dice el Reglamento, por otra. En mi opinión, ninguna de estas instituciones ha dado señal alguna de estar dispuesta a abandonar, de una vez por todas, esta interpretación amplia del artículo 43, apartado 3, en favor de otro tipo de procedimiento más respetuoso con las prerrogativas del Parlamento.

En conclusión, hay unanimidad en los grupos, entre los coordinadores y entre todos los diputados. Hemos hecho un planteamiento muy claro en las preguntas orales y a mí me gustaría que igual de claro nos contestaran la Comisión y el Consejo a las preguntas que hoy les formulamos.


  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, Autora. − Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, a presente pergunta oral com resolução sobre a contribuição da PCP para a produção de bens públicos surge no contexto da reforma da Política Comum de Pescas, a qual deve passar a contemplar uma conceção holística da pesca e também da crise que a Europa atravessa, a qual exige o contributo de todos os setores de atividade socioprofissional e assim também da pesca, para uma efetiva superação.

Os objetivos da proposta de resolução são claros: o primeiro é o reivindicar o reconhecimento da multifuncionalidade da pesca. Tal implica a consciencialização de que esta não se reduz à sua atividade tradicional de extração, transformação e comercialização porque, para além destes vetores e do seu valor socioeconómico, a pesca desempenha um papel relevante ao nível da história, cultural, recreativo, turístico, científico, energético, ambiental, educativo, entre outros, produzindo bens públicos de que a sociedade usufrui e que devem ser tidos em conta no financiamento da PCP.

Um segundo objetivo é o de propor a noção de condicionalidade, isto é, uma discriminação positiva para aqueles que derem provas da implementação de boas práticas ao nível da pesca, seja nas artes utilizadas, seja na rejeição da pesca ilegal e no empenho da redução das pescarias acessórias. Esta medida, aliás, terá como impacto positivo complementar o aumento da colaboração dos armadores e pescadores nos processos de fiscalização e de controlo.

Um terceiro objetivo é o de evidenciar como a pesca em si mesma e integrada na política marítima integrada contribui para os objetivos da Cimeira Rio+20 na criação de emprego e na erradicação da pobreza e para a Estratégia 2020 da União Europeia, promovendo o crescimento inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo através da sua cada vez maior fundamentação científica, estruturação ecossistémica e formação profissional. Só esta renovada, holística, moderna, conceção de pesca pode torná-la num verdadeiro motor de desenvolvimento, que tarda em chegar a muitas zonas costeiras dos Estados-Membros virados para o mar, como é Portugal, ou regiões marítimas como são as ilhas e especificamente as ultraperiféricas como os Açores. Não podemos exigir menos da próxima reforma.


  Ulrike Rodust, Verfasserin. − Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Worum geht es hier heute? Es geht darum, dass wir als Fischereipolitiker Mehrjahrespläne für unsere Fischbestände beschließen wollen, um der Überfischung in unseren Meeren ein Ende zu bereiten.

Mehrjahrespläne sind das zentrale Instrument der Fischereipolitik! Der Fisch, um den es heute geht, der Stöcker, ist nur ein Beispiel für viele. Wir wollen Managementpläne für alle kommerziell genutzten Fischarten. Vor ziemlich genau 16 Monaten saßen wir schon einmal hier im Parlament und haben die Parlamentsposition zu diesem Mehrjahresplan verabschiedet. Vorausgegangen war der Versuch, mit dem Rat zu verhandeln. Daraus wurde leider nichts, denn die Fischereiminister der Europäischen Union wollen scheinbar in wichtigen Fragen ohne das Parlament arbeiten. In den vergangenen 16 Monaten hat sich der Rat in dieser Frage keinen Millimeter bewegt. Ganz schön starrsinnig! Starrsinnigkeit ist in der Politik keine schlechte Eigenschaft, aber in diesem Fall ist sie skandalös. Der Rat hat es geschafft, dafür zu sorgen, dass es überhaupt keine neuen Langzeitmanagementpläne mehr gibt. Als ob das Kräftemessen zwischen den Institutionen wichtiger wäre als eine vernünftige Politik für unsere Fischer, für unsere Umwelt, für unsere Bürger! Wenn wir wollen, dass die Menschen mit der Europäischen Union zufrieden sind, müssen wir Ergebnisse liefern. Das tun wir in der Fischereipolitik nun seit zwei Jahren nicht mehr.

Die europäische Fischereipolitik war bisher allein in den Händen des Ministerrats. Leider ist das Ergebnis ein Desaster. Dass die Minister nun die Idee haben, ohne das Parlament weitermachen zu wollen, ist vor diesem Hintergrund ein ziemlich schlechter Witz! Spätestens wenn wir miteinander über die Reform der Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik verhandeln, werden auch die Bürger der Europäischen Union merken, wer sich für eine fortschrittliche Politik einsetzt, und wer auf die Bremse tritt.

Liebe Damen und Herren Minister! Bitte gehen Sie noch einmal in sich und manövrieren Sie sich so schnell wie möglich wieder aus dieser Sackgasse heraus!


  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, autor. − Panie Przewodniczący! Wspólna Polityka Rybołówstwa ma ogromne znaczenie i wpływ na środowiskową społeczność rybacką jako dobro publiczne. Tradycja, kultura oraz kontynuacja pokoleniowa zawodu rybaka jest zjawiskiem wpisanym od niepamiętnych lat w historię Europy. Rybołówstwo jest jedną z najstarszych w dziejach ludzkości branż gospodarczych o ponadbiznesowym znaczeniu. Dotychczasowa realizacja Wspólnej Polityki Rybołówstwa przyniosła druzgocącą klęskę, nie tylko w kontekście środowiska naturalnego, gdyż stan zasobów nie jest na należytym poziomie, ale również w zakresie ochrony branży i środowiska rybackiego, które znalazło się w niezwykle trudnym położeniu.

Na szczególną uwagę powinno zasługiwać rybołówstwo na małą skalę jako kulturowa wartość społeczna, ale także jako źródło zarobku małych, rodzinnych przedsiębiorstw wprowadzających na rynek wiele miejsc pracy. W niektórych obszarach Europy jest to jedyny sposób zarobkowania i utrzymywania rodzin. W moim odczuciu przyszłość drobnego rybołówstwa nie jest pewna i rodzi wiele wątpliwości, chociażby w kontekście sprzedaży indywidualnych kwot połowowych. Innym niezwykle ważnym elementem jest konkurencyjność, która w zderzeniu rybołówstwa na małą skalę z wielkimi kombinatami przetwórczymi, jak również z niepohamowaną liberalizacją rynku tworzy ponury obraz przyszłości. Ale to, co najważniejsze, to kontynuacja pokoleniowa tradycji, dziedziczenie wiedzy, umiejętności i ducha zawodu rybaka. Pani Komisarz, pragnę zapytać, jakie działania planuje podjąć Pani w kontekście popularyzacji zawodu rybaka i jaką strategię planuje Pani przyjąć, aby zachęcić młode pokolenia do podjęcia tego zawodu.


  João Ferreira, Autor. − Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, o setor das pescas, para além da importância estratégica que tem para o abastecimento público de pescado e para o equilíbrio da balança alimentar dos Estados-Membros, contribui também, consideravelmente, para o bem-estar socioeconómico das comunidades costeiras, o desenvolvimento local, o emprego, a manutenção e a criação de atividades económicas e de postos de trabalho a montante e a jusante da pesca.

A Política Comum das Pescas da União Europeia negligenciou, até hoje, a importância da multifuncionalidade do setor e com ela a chamada produção de bens públicos. A profunda crise económica e social que afeta o setor das pescas, resultado de uma política cuja orientação central se resumiu em muitos casos ao abate indiferenciado de embarcações, compromete a libertação e o aproveitamento pleno do enorme potencial do setor em múltiplos domínios, como o económico, o social, o histórico-cultural o científico, o educativo ou o ambiental, entre outros.

A questão que se coloca, Sra. Comissária, é se vai a reforma em curso da PCP contribuir para alterar este quadro ou se, pelo contrário, o vai manter ou até mesmo agravar. Infelizmente, os sinais até agora dados pela Comissão não são animadores, podemos mesmo dizer que são inquietantes. A defesa de uma crescente orientação da PCP para o mercado e a supressão progressiva de apoios públicos - filosofia geral que inspira a reforma - esquece que o mercado não reconhece, e não remunera devidamente, muitas das chamadas externalidades positivas no plano ambiental e social pelos quais são responsáveis segmentos da frota menos competitivos de um ponto de vista estritamente económico.

É sabido que, no contexto geral do setor da pesca, a pequena pesca costeira e a pesca artesanal, segmentos largamente maioritários em muitos Estados-Membros, assumem uma particular importância para a multifuncionalidade e a produção de bens públicos. Ora, a importância deste segmento da frota não é suficientemente reconhecida pela proposta da Comissão. Pelo contrário, a Comissão adota uma definição de pesca de pequena escala redutora e desfasada da realidade, ao mesmo tempo que propõe uma modificação do sistema de gestão da PCP assente na criação, com caráter obrigatório em todos os Estados-Membros, de um sistema de concessões individuais transferíveis que poderá prejudicar gravemente a pequena pesca costeira e a pesca artesanal e, com elas, a multifuncionalidade do setor e a produção de bens públicos.

Se este sistema for por diante, o que tudo faremos para que não venha a acontecer, nenhuma, repito, nenhuma das cláusulas de salvaguarda já propostas pela Comissão poderá travar a inevitável concentração da atividade nos operadores com maior poderio económico e financeiro, primeiro à escala nacional, mas inevitavelmente mais tarde ou mais cedo, à escala europeia. Seria mais um forte contributo para o declínio de muitas comunidades pesqueiras mais dependentes da pesca.

Estas são orientações que urge travar e inverter. Existem outros caminhos, caminhos alternativos que permitem inverter o declínio do setor e contribuir para um aproveitamento pleno do seu grande potencial. Este caminho passa por propostas como a articulação do novo Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e das Pescas com outros instrumentos, designadamente a Política de Coesão, para promover a coesão do tecido económico e social das comunidades costeiras mais dependentes da pesca. O apoio às atividades económicas associadas à pesca, quer a montante quer a jusante, a diversificação, que não substituição das atividades de pesca, com o desenvolvimento de atividades complementares. Deverão ser privilegiados os projetos com soluções integradas que beneficiem o conjunto das comunidades costeiras tão amplamente quanto possível em detrimento daqueles que beneficiam apenas um número reduzido de operadores. O acesso a estes projetos deverá ser garantido a pescadores e famílias e não apenas a armadores.

A promoção do rejuvenescimento do setor, com a entrada na atividade de jovens, assegurando-se um apoio, entre outras, à satisfação das necessidades ao nível da formação profissional e do início da atividade. A valorização das atividades desenvolvidas em terra. O reconhecimento e a valorização do papel das mulheres na pesca. A elaboração de um programa comunitário de apoio à pequena pesca que, articulando instrumentos diversos, designadamente no plano financeiro, dê resposta aos problemas específicos deste segmento e apoie uma gestão de proximidade sustentável das pescarias envolvidas.

Estas são algumas das propostas que pensamos que a reforma em curso deveria acolher, a bem do reconhecimento da multifuncionalidade do setor das pescas e da produção de bens públicos, entre muitas outras propostas que constam da nossa resolução.


  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, let me first take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Mato Adrover on his election as Chair of the committee. Unfortunately my colleague, the Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Ms Mette Gjerskov, was not able to be here today. However it is a pleasure for me to take part in this important debate on fisheries. I would like to address the different issues raised one by one.

On the horse mackerel multi-annual plan, the Council shares the view expressed previously by Ms Fraga and today by Mr Gallagher on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries that the establishment of long-term management plans is key to conservation. That is why the Council has adopted 10 such plans since 2003 covering many, if not most, of the major stocks in the Union waters.

I am pleased to inform you that the Committee of Permanent Representatives in the Council made considerable progress last November on a way forward on the proposed multiannual plan for the stock of western horse mackerel. I understand that Ms Fraga, Mr Gallagher and the shadow rapporteurs were informed of the outcome in early December. Against this background the Council will now be in a position to examine in full Parliament’s positions in first reading, and to that end work is beginning this week. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Honourable Members for their positive and pragmatic approach and I hope that results can be achieved.

I turn now to the proposed plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay, which was also raised by the Honourable Members. The Council position is that this plan is not in line with the Treaty. The Council, at the level of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, therefore asked the Commission in the autumn of 2010 to withdraw the proposal. The Council has not discussed the plan since then.

The Council agrees that long-term management plans are one of the key elements of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. That is why it has made such an effort to unblock the situation for the plan for western horse mackerel. The Council is fully committed to cooperating with Parliament and the Commission to agree on a way forward. We are ready to work with you on this plan and on other long-term and management plans which are at the centre of conservation and of the reform of the common fishery policy.

I now turn to the issue of total allowable catch and quota regulation and begin by thanking Mr Mato Adrover for his question on the adoption of the 2012 fishing opportunities. I would like to start by restating that the Council continues its commitment to adopt measures that are fully in line with the relevant legal provisions. I strongly believe that this commitment is also reflected in the adoption of fishing opportunities for 2012.

The Commission presented two proposals for adoption of measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities for 2012, one on the internal aspect and the other on the external aspect. The Commission based its proposal on Article 43(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, under which the Council shall adopt measures on a proposal from the Commission on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.

The Council consistently agreed with the Commission’s choice of legal basis for the following reasons. The Council considers that Article 43(3) represents a self-standing specific legal basis that applies to clearly identified measures to be adopted under the Common Fisheries Policy. Furthermore, Article 43(3) of the Treaty speaks of measures which indicate that the authors of the Treaty intended to give the Council powers to adopt all measures that are inextricably linked to the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities. They can only cover measures which have a direct bearing on the quantitative fishing entitlements.

Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that, since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the objectives for the common fisheries policies, including those concerning multiannual plans, must be adopted in the ordinary legislative procedure with agreement between Parliament and the Council. The Council is committed to respecting that.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to a very good debate here in Parliament today.


  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to welcome the presence of the Council here: it is very important for everybody, Minister, to have you in this debate. So, honourable Members, I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss with you some very important issues.

The two first issues concern the new framework we have under the Lisbon Treaty, and I would like to repeat that the Commission is here to cooperate with everybody during this transitional period in order to find practical solutions. I reiterate that it is not the Commission’s aim, Mr Mato Adrover, to go against this House. We are trying to cooperate with everybody, and I think that citizens watching us in the context of the crisis would like to see all the EU institutions cooperating in the best way we can.

Regarding the horse mackerel plan and the long-term management plans in general, I agree with you, Mr Gallagher, and with Ms Rodust and the Presidency of course, that this is an issue of great importance in relation to the sustainability of stocks: it really is a matter of urgency. I agree with you also, Mr Gallagher, because, since this plan was proposed in 2009, we have based all quota proposals on the plan, and today this stock is actually fished fairly sustainably. This, therefore, is the way to go, and we have to be sure that we can secure this approach.

The problem in relation to these long-term management plans is – to cut a long story short – between Parliament and the Council. We need to agree on the respective competences of the two institutions, and this is something we have to do in cooperation, as best we can. So, the Council, Minister, has to do whatever it can to take the right decisions in order to find a solution here, and we need to compromise. We will facilitate this in any way we can.

I would call on you, Minister, to take the decision in the Council as quickly as possible to go for a second reading. The only way to reach a compromise here is to go for the second reading in Parliament and the Commission. I promise here that we will do everything we can to facilitate the procedure but we need an urgent decision from you, the Council, in order to proceed.

Regarding the application of Article 43 of the Treaty, I agree with everybody that the procedure for fishing opportunities is an exception to the ordinary legislative procedure and therefore that it should be interpreted very strictly, and this is exactly what we are doing.

I would like to remind you that, since 2010, the Commission has consistently limited its proposals to fishing opportunities and conditions functionally linked to them. Let me be clear here: fishing opportunities are quantified fishing rights. The Treaty refers to ‘fishing opportunities’. As a matter of principle, a quantified fishing right cannot exist in a void, so – while the Treaty does not refer to TACs and quotas – a TAC area or an allowed fishing season, for example, is necessary for fishing opportunities to work. Let all of us be reasonable here. We are talking about fishing opportunities and we have to respect the Treaties, so these conditions are functionally linked to fishing opportunities as they have a direct bearing on them.

This, then, is our position: we have to cooperate here and we have to find the best way that all three institutions can live together. I do not think we face a power game here, and it is not a matter of the Commission trying to prevent Parliament from exercising its new powers.

In relation to the last item raised by other Members of the House – Mr Ferreira, Mr Gróbarczyk and Ms Patrão Neves – namely, the contribution of the common fisheries policy to the production of public goods, I would like to highlight the specific measures provided for under the reform to improve the situation of the fisheries sector and, in particular, of small-scale fisheries and coastal communities. While I do not have time to discuss the whole idea of the common fisheries policy, I would like to focus on this issue of social sustainability.

Healthy stocks support larger catches of bigger fish. We have to realise that the only way to have a healthy fisheries sector is to have healthy stocks. There is no other way. We cannot invent any other way. We can give a lot of subsidies, a lot of money – taxpayers’ money – but if we do not have healthy stocks, then there is no way to have a healthy sector. This is something we all need to understand because healthy stocks can improve profitability and the wages and employment of fishermen, and also of people working in processing; and that is the best way of encouraging young people – whom Mr Gróbarczyk mentioned specifically – to come into the sector. If young people see that there is an income to be earned there, then they will come.

Of course we can do more: I am not shirking my responsibilities, or the Commission’s responsibilities, and I am trying to do more in the framework of my reform proposals. Our funding has an important role to play here. I would underline the fact that we are paying special attention to small-scale fisheries. Why? Because the small-scale sector represents close to 80% of our fishing vessels and around 40% of onboard employment. We are taking special care here, as you can see in our proposal on small-scale vessels. We have recognised the importance of this sector and have made an effort to propose dedicated measures for these fleets.

What are these measures? Business and innovation advisory services and higher aid intensity – and I would ask you not to overlook the latter, which includes a wide range of measures aimed at increasing income by supporting selectivity, marketing, product quality and innovation. We also want to support producer organisations and improvements in working conditions, safety, hygiene and training. We have special measures for all of this in our funding. I also made sure that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) has increased funding for the sustainable development of coastal areas. In our impact assessment we came to the conclusion that the EMFF could result in around 12 500 additional full-time jobs in the sector.

Honourable Members, you rightly call for attractive jobs. I can understand the situation. I really can understand the situation of fishermen and their families and of coastal communities in the middle of the economic crisis, so I am determined to deliver on your demand, and I am convinced that together we can get it right. Your proposals are very welcome and I will try to my best to adopt all possible measures to give our small-scale fisheries and our coastal communities a future.


  Guido Milana, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, mi rivolgo direttamente al Commissario e al Ministro. Signora Commissario, un anno e mezzo la incitai ad agire con coraggio perché in questo modo avrebbe avuto l'appoggio del Parlamento. Mi sembra che ora stia invece prevalendo l'idea che il Parlamento sia una sorta di peso, di orpello, nelle procedure e che l'atteggiamento della Commissione sia spesso piuttosto appiattito sulle posizioni del Consiglio, il quale rinuncia ad avere un vero confronto con il Parlamento.

È oggi in discussione la riforma della PCP; il Parlamento si pone degli interrogativi, mentre i Ministri stanno già mediando sulla proposta presentata dalla Commissione: qui si va oltre l'applicazione del terzo comma dell'articolo 43. Va davvero ripristinato il principio che il trattato di Lisbona ha conferito al Parlamento e credo che su questo punto occorra fare un salto culturale nei nostri rapporti, piuttosto che lavorare di fioretto, cercando di capire se su questa o quell'altra procedura si è imboccata la strada giusta. Si tratta di un problema diverso: io penso che nel settore della pesca non ci sia ancora la consapevolezza del ruolo che può svolgere il Parlamento.

Voteremo domani o dopodomani la relazione presentata stamani, in maniera egregia, dalla collega Patrão Neves. Ebbene, se riceverà il voto favorevole del Parlamento, tale risoluzione pone già oggi dei paletti molto seri rispetto a ciò che comporterà la riforma.

Non sono assolutamente convinto della bontà delle proposte rispetto all'aspetto socioeconomico della riforma proposta: si parla infatti di espulsione della forza lavoro dal settore e non di sostituzione del lavoro. Credo che anche in questo caso occorra fare un passo culturale diverso. L'elenco delle questioni da lei presentato è davvero piccolo in quanto non disegna uno scenario in cui si sostituisce l'attività di pesca con un'altra attività, in cui diventano centrali, ad esempio, l'acquacoltura o il turismo.

Ritengo che queste misure siano semplicemente relegate all'aspetto dei diritti trasferibili, i quali, signor Commissario, non garantiranno assolutamente un'applicazione socioeconomica della riduzione dello sforzo di pesca perché…

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)


  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I am sorry that some Members have still not understood the concept that if there were no fish there would be no jobs for fishermen. This debate is important because it sets a precedent for the future, for the setting of long-term management plans – which has been recognised as crucial to the whole reform of the common fisheries policy – and showing that we have sustainable fish for the future.

The Minister has referred to Article 43(3) of the Treaty, which says that the Council should adopt measures on fixing quantitative limitations and the allocation of fishing opportunities, but Article 43(2) says that the European Parliament, in partnership with the Council, shall establish the provisions necessary for the pursuit of the obligations of the common fisheries policy. Clearly there is a dispute and a lack of clarity here. Whatever other disputes there may be amongst Members of this Parliament, I suspect we will mostly be united on standing up for the position of Parliament as we see it in the Treaty.

It is not as though the Council has a very good record to defend. We know that its application of Article 43(3) has been abysmal, involving annual meetings which are notorious even amongst former fisheries ministers. These are gladiatorial contests where ministers come to stand up for national interests, over-fishing and setting limits. According to the University of York’s latest estimates, over the past few years these have exceeded best scientific advice by 33%, with the result that we have seen too much over-fishing and a decline in fish stocks across the European Union.

Looking to the future, we all recognise that long-term management plans are key. I think it is important that we also recognise the urgency of this. If we are to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015, we have got to get the reformed fishing regulation through as quickly as possible, and the Commission is going to have to come forward with long-term management plans in rapid succession, which must clear the parliamentary process in rapid succession. We have to keep delays to a minimum, so this matter must be resolved.

I welcome the fact that the Danish Presidency has this high on its agenda and I thoroughly support the Commissioner in what she is saying, which is: let us go for a second reading, let us have our debate, let us make absolutely clear what are the lines of difference between the Council and the Commission, and then let us negotiate. This will be resolved by negotiation between the two institutions. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can put in place the measures necessary to ensure that we have healthy fish stocks for the future.


  Isabella Lövin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, everyone agrees, it seems, that in the future common fisheries policy long-term management plans should be the basis of management. This failure to come up with a solution for anchovy and for horse mackerel – for two years now the institutions have not really come up with a solution – could be interpreted by citizens as proof that the EU institutions are not mature enough or efficient enough to deal with even such relatively simple questions. These issues need to be resolved for the EU to be credible in its reform of fisheries policies. We need to put this dispute on competences into perspective in relation to the real issue here, which is that we have the responsibility to defend and optimise what is really a public good – fish and the marine environment.

This leads me to the second topic of this debate, the contribution the CFP makes to the common good. Let us be honest here. Technology advances all the time and fishermen become more and more efficient at fishing, which means we need fewer fishermen today to catch the same amount of fish as were caught yesterday. Employment in the catching sector in Europe today accounts for less than 0.1% of the total EU labour force and half of these licensed fishermen are only fishing part-time. Any increased employment in the sector must involve things other than being more efficient at fishing. This could be ‘pesca-tourism’, it could mean adding value to catches in different ways, but one thing is for sure, if increased employment is what we want then we cannot promote more efficient fishing methods, including giving funds to fuel-efficient engines.

I would also like to point out that it is a proven fact that over-fishing promotes algal blooms in Europe, causing lots of problems for different sectors. Fish in aquaculture pens die because of it, fishing gear gets clogged by it, and tourists seek other destinations when they cannot swim because of the green pea soup. A low estimate puts costs in Europe caused by algal bloom at EUR 177 million per year. When we speak about fish as a common good it is very important to keep in mind the different functions of wild fish in our oceans. One is to provide food, but another much more important one is that fish are crucial agents in the marine ecosystems. When we deplete stocks, water quality suffers and thereby many other economic sectors in Europe, such as tourism, do so too.


  Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I am sure that the focus of the world today is not on the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel. However, it has become iconic in terms of the log-jam that has developed between this House and the Council.

I absolutely agree with the interpretation that Commissioner Damanaki has placed on this. We are in accord between Parliament and the Commission on the correct legal basis and our approach to this particular resolution, but this has been jammed now for over three years. Since the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty we have had no movement at all from the Council, and Chris Davies is absolutely right in saying we are looking to the Danish Presidency to sort this out.

We need multi-annual plans for a future sustainable fishery in European waters, so horse mackerel has to be sorted out: break the log-jam and then let us get ahead with a proper way of working between the three EU institutions.


  John Bufton, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the report released by the Court of Auditors last week laid bare the failings of the common fisheries policy. EUR 1.7 billion has been wasted since 2002 in vessel decommissioning, which has failed to demonstrate any tangible result as the CFP cannot specify where overcapacity exists. Instead, 90% of stocks are now overfished – 30% beyond safe biological levels. On top of that, 100 000 jobs have been lost.

The Prince of Wales’ think-tank, the International Sustainability Unit, specifies that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. Management of stocks must be dynamic and localised. Devolving control of waters to local level would create an incentive for fishermen to maintain resources in the long term, as they would directly profit from the proliferation of their own stock. The British fleet is permitted to catch only one-fifth of the fish in UK waters. The sense of husbandry was lost when EU waters were carved up to serve a range of foreign vessels. Short-term profit is the only focus for a boat that has travelled far from its own coastline to fish.

The report also highlights the importance of managing the marine ecosystem as a whole, rather than targeting individual species, which can have a knock-on effect on other stocks. Only through locally managed real-time area closures can we rebuild an ecologically sound, profitable fishing industry. Through restoring the UK share of fish stocks alone, the industry could also employ 46% more people and make an extra GBP 400 million – equivalent to 24 times the UK annual subsidy. Subsidies artificially reduce the cost of fishing, allowing it to continue beyond the point of profitability.

Norway and Iceland are leading examples of successful redirection of subsidies and management of stocks. They, of course, are not in the EU. In Iceland, spawning rates have doubled. I am sure that if everyone appealed to common sense and examined the Commission’s track record they would agree that the best way of protecting the ocean for future generations and safeguarding national fishing industries is to take control out of the hands of the European Union.


  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, over the past two years the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council and others have exuded a great deal of energy in the development of a multiannual plan for the western stock of horse mackerel. They are understandably upset that their efforts are being frustrated by a failure to implement the plan, a situation which is being blamed by some on the ongoing game of ping-pong between the EU’s institutions, namely this Parliament and the Council.

The development of long-term management plans is the way forward for Europe’s commercial fisheries. The absence of such a plan was one of the reasons given for the imposition of a 10 % cut in Irish Sea herring for 2012, although I must say that this was also a moveable argument over the course of these negotiations in the weeks and months before it. However, this plan is now being fast-tracked.

I hope that the positive, scientific assessment on Irish Sea herring, together with the advice contained in the plan, will be reflected in a mid-year decision to increase the TAC to a level reflecting the current state of the stock.


  Alain Cadec (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, chers collègues, pour une fois je suis d'accord avec notre collègue Chris Davies: pas de poissons, pas de pêcheurs!

La situation du plan pluriannuel de chinchard occidental nous préoccupe aujourd'hui pour plusieurs raisons. Ce plan de gestion a été adopté par le Parlement en novembre 2010 afin d'assurer une gestion durable du stock. Depuis, le Parlement attend toujours la première lecture du Conseil. Il est donc indispensable que le Conseil se positionne sur ce plan.

Tant que la situation est bloquée, c'est le stock de chinchard qui est abandonné et la ressource menacée. Ce blocage est dû à un conflit institutionnel qu'il faut régler au plus vite. Comme mes collègues, je suis d'avis que la procédure législative ordinaire s'applique au plan de gestion. Le Parlement s'est montré ouvert à la discussion en introduisant de la flexibilité dans le mode de calcul des possibilités de pêche. Le Conseil doit maintenant justifier son absence de positionnement en première lecture. Ce blocage retarde également des dossiers connexes comme celui de l'anchois mais également tous les plans pluriannuels qui seront adoptés à l'avenir.

Nous demandons également à la Commission de faciliter le dialogue entre le Parlement et le Conseil. À la veille de la réforme de la PCP, dans laquelle nous devons généraliser les plans de gestion, il faut sortir par le haut de ce blocage institutionnel qui nuit à la conservation des ressources.

Par ailleurs, s'agissant de l'initiative de notre collègue Patrão Neves, je partage évidemment son souci que la pêche soit considérée comme une contribution à la production de biens publics et que le principe de conditionnalité y soit appliqué.

Pour conclure, mes chers collègues, je tiens à redire que nous sommes bien à Strasbourg, siège unique du Parlement selon les traités.


  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). - Mr President, fishing does not happen in a void. It happens within our seas and is based on fish stock availability. Thus, having more fish is about fishermen’s income and about securing jobs. That is why the show that we put on for the Council, each time we have to make and put forward our decisions on TAC quotas and multiannual plans, is really misplaced. In the midst of this European debt crisis we always take the decision to fish, to consume more now and create debt for the future.

In the reform of the common fisheries policy Parliament will be asking for fisheries reserves, so as to add this discussion an element seeking to reassure people that there will be fish available and that there will be more fish in our seas, more easily fished by our fishermen, both for our fishermen and our coastal communities, and for our common future. I have just seen a description of what Parliament will be asking for, namely that fishery reserves are areas where we do not fish, where we leave the stocks to be revitalised and come back to their original numbers. And around them we can catch more fish much faster and more easily.


  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, over the lifetime of the CFP the Commission and the Council have gathered ever more powers to themselves. They have extended the remit of the December Council far beyond deciding upon fishing opportunities. Now the Commission and Council are taking a restrictive approach in interpreting the Lisbon Treaty to allow themselves to continue with these centralised powers and, worse, to claim that the Treaty prevents a radical approach to decentralisation.

My constituents in the fishing nation of Scotland will not be impressed if CFP reform does not sweep away the failed practices which have so discredited the European Union’s role in fisheries management. If environmental and social sustainability is to be achieved, I think that decentralisation has to be at the top of the agenda and that returning real management power to fishing nations would ensure that those with most to gain from successful conservation would have, for the first time, the incentive to make it happen.


  Anna Rosbach (ECR). - Hr. formand! Fru kommissær! Hr. minister! Jeg støtter de stillede spørgsmål, men vil undlade at tale om interinstitutionelle slagsmål og hestemakrellen.

I de sidste 20 år har meget ændret sig i fiskerisektoren. I dag er der langt færre aktive fiskere, men fiskeindustrien bidrager til at skabe nye arbejdspladser i andre sektorer. De små fiskersamfund har gode muligheder for turisme og undervisning samt levering af specialprodukter til lokale restauranter. Fiskeindustrien bidrager både til den lokale kulturarv og den generelle udvikling i kystområderne. Fiskeriet skal sameksistere med biodiversitet og havmiljø. Akvakultur skal udbygges bl.a. i form af dyrkning af skaldyr og alger til både bioethanol, kosmetik og medicin. Derudover skal vi fiske efter affald og pleje det kystnære havmiljø.

Vi skal derfor have klargjort, hvordan Kommissionen og Rådet i disse tider agter at indarbejde merværdien fra sektoren i reformen af den fælles fiskeripolitik.


  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, the best conservation measure would be for the UK to withdraw from the EU and regain exclusive control of our fishing grounds. Overfishing is the direct result of access to our waters by other Member States. Our default position is opposition to any common fisheries policy.

However, it would be churlish not to recognise the improvements that some of the proposals would bring. The end to the discard policy is welcome but long overdue. The return of unwanted fish that are likely to survive, the counting of other unintentionally caught adult fish towards quotas, and the selling of accidentally caught undersize fish for pet food and fishmeal are all reasonable proposals within the context of the common fisheries policy. But why has it taken so long for the EU to address the obscene discard policy? We are told that the policy will end in 2016. Will it really? And why has it been so long in coming?

For as long as we remain in the EU, the total allowable catch figures and the number of days at sea allocated to the UK must reflect the fact that we provide a massively disproportionate amount of the total fishing grounds and the stock of fish.

When it comes to Community aid to the fishery sector, our fishermen, such as those in Whitby, Hull and Grimsby, do not receive fair treatment. Our fishing sector gets only 3% of the aid, whereas Spain gets 26%, and Poland 17%. Our tonnage is just under half that of Spain, and our total catch is about three quarters. Even Romania, whose main catch is goldfish, gets more aid than the UK.


  Jim Higgins (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, ar dtús ceist don Choimisiún. An bhfuil an Coimisinéir réidh lena aithint go bhfuil níos mó i gceist leis an gComhbheartas Iascaigh (CFP) ná éisc a ghabháil, ach gur féidir leis an CFP cur leis an saol socheacnamaíoch i gcomhphobail chósta ó thaobh na forbartha áitiúla de agus i dtaca le cruthú jabanna, díreach agus indíreach, san earnáil.

Mar shampla, tá formhór an tionscail iascaireachta in Éirinn suite thart timpeall an chósta i gcomhphobail iargúlta nach mbíonn aon tionscal eile iontu de ghnáth; in áiteanna, mar shampla, arb í an Ghaeilge an chéad teanga sa phobal agus ina bhfuil gnéithe den chultúr dúchasach – mar cheol, damhsa, litríocht agus rudaí eile cultúrtha – fite fuaite le chéile. Sin í an ghné shocheacnamaíoch a bhfuilim ag cur béime uirthi.

Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom a rá chomh láidir agus is féidir liom – agus tá mé ag labhairt anseo ar son na bhFeisirí Éireannacha – nach féidir linn glacadh leis na TACs (Gabhálacha Iomlána is Incheadaithe). Scriosfaidís an tionscal iascaireachta agus níl aon amhras ann ach go dtarlóidh sé sin más rud é go nglacfar na TACs. Ní féidir linn glacadh leo.


  Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D). - Señor Presidente, Señorías, señor Ministro, señora Comisaria, no voy a referirme a la cuestión de la competencia, puesto que en las intervenciones de mis antecesores ha quedado claro que, a partir de la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa, se aplica el procedimiento de codecisión. Por lo tanto, son ustedes quienes responsablemente tienen que traer a esta Cámara un plan plurianual que contemple las medidas necesarias para hacer que el jurel pueda pescarse de manera sostenible desde el punto de vista ambiental, social y económico.

Ya existía en 2009 un compromiso de la Presidencia sueca de plantear un plan inmediato, en 2010, por parte del Consejo. Estamos en enero de 2012 y aún tenemos solo un informe en el que, por cierto, si bien se ha dicho —y yo estoy de acuerdo— que recoge en gran medida las opiniones de la Comisión, España no ve reflejada una de sus principales preocupaciones, que es definir en ese plan plurianual las zonas, las pesquerías.

Porque, en España, el jurel se consume, no se utiliza para harina. Es un pescado fresco que se consume en el día y que supone, además de una sostenibilidad ambiental para las ...

(El Presidente interrumpe a la oradora)


  James Nicholson (ECR). - Mr President, Mr Mato’s question to the Council and the Commission quite rightly asks why the institutions are adopting year-on-year measures on tax and quotas as well as technical measures concerning restricted zones and depths. This is clearly a very broad interpretation of the legal basis for decisions which should only concern the ‘fixing’ and allocation of fishing opportunities.

Parliament has been excluded from the negotiations on these issues; this is clearly contrary to the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty. As we enter into a period of fisheries reform the Council and Commission will have to adopt a more constructive approach and attitude to Parliament.

In my own region the outcome of the recent Fisheries Council in December 2011 meant a 25% cut in the cod quota in the Irish Sea, among other cuts in stocks such as for herring. These developments will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the industry. The Common Fisheries Policy must go down the road to regionalisation.

The current micro-management of our waters is having a devastating effect on our fisheries industry. Brussels must realise one suit does not fit everyone and get on with the job and get the problem solved. That is the message the Council has to take away from here this morning.


  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). - Voorzitter, mijnheer de commissaris, de vragen die vanmorgen hier zijn gesteld, geven aan dat we als Parlement in alle stappen die we nog gaan zetten, directer betrokken willen worden en onze wetgevende rol volledig serieus willen nemen. Dat geldt zowel voor de tekst, de quota, als voor de verordening. Ik ben rapporteur voor de algemene verordening over de vijf fondsen en ik vind dat de vragen in de goede richting gaan.

Ik wil er vandaag één punt uithalen. Ik ben een Nederlandse vertegenwoordiger in het Parlement en ik kom even terug op de gevolgen van het niet-doorgaan van de overeenkomst met Marokko in zo'n laat stadium. De Spaanse vissers hebben aangegeven dat zij daardoor nadelen hebben en dat ze gecompenseerd zouden willen worden uit het visserijfonds. Dat geldt eigenlijk ook voor de Nederlandse vissers. Het gaat over vijf miljoen aan gederfde inkomsten en de vraag is of we ook in Nederland een dergelijke oplossing binnen het visserijfonds zouden kunnen vinden. Het is een heel gedetailleerde vraag, maar ik krijg die wel vanuit mijn achterban. Het kan niet dat er een Spaanse oplossing is en geen Nederlandse oplossing. Gelijke monniken, gelijke kappen, zeggen wij in Nederland. Mag ik van u een antwoord daarop?


  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D). - Señor Presidente, la pesca es algo más que abastecer proteínas de calidad: es un modo de vida. Por eso, la reforma de la política pesquera común es un indicador de la vocación de sostenibilidad de la Unión Europea. Debe ser una reforma con una dimensión integral desde el punto de vista económico, social, territorial y ambiental.

Dos de cada mil empleos en la Unión Europea pertenecen al sector de la pesca. En comunidades como Galicia, ese porcentaje se multiplica por 15. Es, por lo tanto, fundamental conseguir mejores empleos, un sector eficiente y de calidad. Son necesarias también la participación del sector en el desarrollo de la pesca sostenible y la promoción del desarrollo local y de las comunidades pesqueras.

Por lo que se refiere al medio ambiente, es necesario conservar los recursos, los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad. Hay que estimular las buenas prácticas ambientales, diferenciando no solo la pesca artesanal, sino también la acuicultura, con actividades extensivas y tradicionales, y es necesario enmarcar todo ello en una política marítima integrada.

Hay muchos aspectos —y lo fundamental es reconocer que la pesca es una actividad multisectorial y multifuncional— y todos ellos deben tener reconocimiento en la reforma de la política pesquera para que aporte valor al sector en la Unión Europea.


  Werner Kuhn (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Debatte über die nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung des Stöckers ist natürlich auch ein willkommener Anlass, sich darüber zu unterhalten, wie die gemeinsame Fischereipolitik für die nächsten sieben, zehn, zwanzig Jahre in Europa aussehen soll. Dabei müssen wir feststellen, dass das, was bisher Praxis gewesen ist und mit den entsprechenden Durchführungsbestimmungen durch die Kommission und ihre Beamten untermauert wird, sich nicht in allen Bereichen bewährt hat.

Aber wir sollten auch nicht die bewährten Instrumente über Bord werfen. Ich denke da an die relative Stabilität, damit man Klarheit darüber hat, wie Quoten aufgeteilt werden, dass wir keine Valutierbarkeit von Quoten, von TACS haben wollen, die dann bei Banken hinterlegt werden, wohl aber den Tausch der Quoten in den einzelnen Seegebieten. Da sind wir genau bei einer zentralen Frage, die sich damit befasst, wie wir mit unseren Ressourcen in den Meeren insgesamt umgehen, wenn wir über Rückwürfe reden, über discards. Da müssen wir eine Lösung finden.

Das Gleiche gilt auch dafür, wenn man sich darüber unterhält, wie Ressourcen spielerisch vergeben werden. Wenn wir uns die Bestände unserer Raubvögel oder unserer Seehunde anschauen, sind das alles Reserven, die wir in Europa nicht einfach leichtfertig weggeben können, wo wir ein Riesenmarkt mit 500 Millionen Einwohnern sind, die dort 8 Millionen Tonnen Fisch und Fischereiprodukte konsumieren.

Wir sind ein Riesenimportmarkt, und deswegen ist es notwendig, dass wir auch gerade der Küstenfischerei und der handwerklichen Fischerei eine Zukunft geben, und das heißt schon, dass wir unserer Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik auch Mittel einräumen sollten, mit denen man Jungfischer, Existenzgründer, die letztendlich eine Lizenz, ein Boot übernehmen wollen, finanziell fördert. Das tun wir bei Junglandwirten auch!

Wir dürfen uns auch nicht nur immer apodiktisch darüber unterhalten und sagen: Um Gottes Willen, keine Investitionen in die Flotte! Nein, das ist falsch! Wir fahren zum Teil mit Fischereifahrzeugen, die 60 Jahre alt sind und mit uralten Dieselmaschinen betrieben werden. Das sind die größten Umweltverschmutzer, und wir stecken keinen Pfennig rein, um die Flotte zu erneuern. Ich glaube, diese Themen müssen wir unbedingt miteinander besprechen.

Moderne Fischerei: Natürlich muss die Quote zu den Antriebsleistungen in einem vernünftigen Verhältnis stehen, und natürlich brauchen wir eine vernünftige Fischereiaufsicht. Aber wenn wir Mehrjahrespläne – z.B. für den Dorsch in der Ostsee – auflegen, und die Kommission und ihre Beamten dann gleich wieder sagen, dann müsst ihr zusätzliche Kontrollen vorsehen, damit auch kleine, offene Boote, die kein Ruderhaus haben, ein Logbuch führen…

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort)


Procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)


  Seán Kelly (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, is léir ón díospóireacht seo ar maidin go bhfuil a lán oibre le déanamh agus go bhfuil a lán comhoibriú ag teastáil idir an Pharlaimint, an Chomhairle agus an Coimisiún chun an cheist seo a phlé agus a thabhairt go dtí an dara léamh, mar a dúirt an Coimisinéir. A luaithe a tharlaíonn sé is fearr é don mhéid éisc a bheidh san fharraige agus do ghairm bheatha na n-iascairí. Freisin, molaim mo chomhghleacaí Gaelach, Pat ‘the Cope’ Gallagher, as ucht an dea-obair a dhéanann sé i gcónaí maidir leis an gceist seo.

I have a few brief points to make. I agree completely with the points made regarding the need for regionalisation, the preservation of coastal areas, the gillnets to which Mr Gallagher referred, the danger of transferable fishing concessions (TFCs) and the absolute desirability of eliminating discards. If we can address all that ...

... beidh a lán lán dul chun cinn déanta againn.


  Phil Prendergast (S&D). - Mr President, there is more to the fisheries sector than catching and processing fish: it brings numerous social, economic and cultural benefits to communities in Europe. The fishing sector now includes both the coastal tourism sector and aquaculture. The opening up of our coastal towns to fishing tourism generates direct and indirect employment opportunities worth promoting. Many fishing towns can be quite isolated, and by targeting coastal tourism and aquaculture, the Common Fisheries Policy can make such communities sustainable.

You can board a charter vessel to experience the thrill of sea fishing – in my constituency you can do this in Cork harbour for example – and various other tours allow people to hire small boats and go out to sea themselves to fish. Other tours bring people to fish off the wrecks of sunken ships. Small fishing communities cannot be assessed purely in economic or catch value terms. They often have a rich cultural heritage and vibrant gastronomic, economic and literary identities.

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, el Consejo tiene que integrar que la política europea debe construirse con apertura, transparencia y participación.

Estos fueron los principios que aplicamos en el plan de la anchoa que fue aprobado por este Parlamento. Sin embargo, el Consejo ha preferido seguir una política antigua manteniendo su status quo sin reconocer el papel que el Tratado de Lisboa otorga al Parlamento, con oscurantismo, decidiendo con criterios que no siempre responden a los intereses del sector pesquero y a la sociedad. Mientras, la Comisión calla.

Están obligados a cambiar su forma de hacer. De lo contrario, seguirán profundizando en la crisis política que es fruto de sus actitudes. En el siglo XXI se lidera, no se manda, y ustedes vetan. Negocian entre ustedes y la autoridad y la legitimidad se adquieren por reconocimiento.

Desbloqueen este y otros planes. Reconozcan el papel del Parlamento, ya que el reto es construir juntos el futuro de la pesca.

Siento decir al Consejo y a la Comisión que, aunque hoy han mostrado buenas palabras, me han decepcionado.


  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I come from a fisheries nation, Galicia, where we have important fisheries communities and our economy and culture is very linked to the sea. We are very worried about the social and economic aspects of the reform of the fisheries policy, especially the implications for small-scale fisheries.

How can the Commission realise concrete measures to help small-scale fisheries, and especially the women and men working in fisheries communities? Small-scale fisheries are an example of social, territorial and economic cohesion and are also more ecological, but the sector is very concerned about the conservation of fish on account of the pollution of waters. We had the Prestige in Galicia and ...

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, vivimos una crisis económica profunda que afecta al sector de la pesca. Nos decía la Comisaria que ahora la pesca es bastante sostenible.

Pues bien, señora Damanaki, necesitamos unas cuotas justas de pesca, especialmente en especies como el verdel y la anchoa. Necesitamos que el reparto de las cuotas pueda ser estudiado con más detenimiento y que no afecte negativamente a numerosas regiones europeas, entre ellas, a mi región, Cantabria.

Para ello, necesitamos todos estos planes plurianuales. Hay miles de pescadores esperando que se solucionen estas disputas institucionales. La pesca es un sector clave, fundamental y competitivo, que siempre ha tratado de alcanzar una solución equilibrada, que aúne las necesidades de los pescadores y las garantías de salvaguarda de las especies.


(Fin del procedimiento de solicitud incidental del uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))


  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I share all the concerns of Members of Parliament with reference to the fisheries sector, coastal communities and the need to be sure about growth and jobs. I was in Vigo, Galicia yesterday and I saw there what is happening, so I can understand everything you are saying.

What can we really do? I agree with those Members of this House who stressed that, in order to achieve social sustainability, we need healthy stocks. I would like to remind some Members of this House of what has been happening up until now. In the past decade 30 % of jobs in the catching sector have been lost. So asking me to keep the status quo is not an option. We are going to lose more jobs. We have to change things. We have a proposal. You may disagree, but at least this is a proposal to move forward. We have to have discussions and find ways to sustain the stocks because, for example, if we reach maximum sustainable yield by 2015, many jobs will be added to the sector.

I would also like to emphasise that our proposal agrees with what we have already said, namely that fisheries is not only about stocks. It is a multi-sector and we need a multi-sectoral approach. We have ancillary sectors, as many of you stressed – processing, cooking, aquaculture, we have maritime tourism, we have a lot of issues in connection with this – so we have to try to find a balance between all these activities. This is what we are trying to do through our proposal. I hope that we will have the time to discuss it in this House in the proper way.

Many Members referred to the issue of regionalisation. I agree with you that this is of great importance. For example, Mr Gallagher referred to gillnets and the haddock stock. This is an issue we have to handle under codecision for the moment. We need regionalisation because, if we are going to approve the Commission’s proposal – and I know that you are not happy and not satisfied with this proposal, but let me give you this example – if this proposal, our proposal, for reform were in place then the Member States concerned could have these decisions as quickly as possible and the problem of gillnets would be solved. Now we have to go through co-decision.

There are also other issues, such as technical measures – there were a lot of references to these – which we can solve through the proposal as it stands. Of course, if we can improve it we will be happy to have your ideas.

Regarding other points, many references were made to the need for investment in the sector. I agree with you. We have to invest but we have to invest in gear selectivity and in real modernisation of the fleet, not in increasing over-capacity. This will not give us solutions. I would agree with Mr Bufton, who emphasised the importance of the Court of Auditors’ report. Yes, this is a European institution, the Court of Auditors, and I am very happy that you are highlighting the importance of this report. We will respect this report. That is why our proposal referring to subsidies in the sector in the future is aligned to this report.

Regarding the issue of Morocco, which was mentioned, we have taken a decision on Morocco referring to the previous protocol which was stopped by a decision of this House. This is not a Spanish decision but a European decision, so it refers to everybody who has something to do with the clear ideas of this decision.

My last point concerns institutional issues. I have a plea to make to the Presidency. We expect the Danish Presidency to move ahead on this subject. Parliament and the Commission are both expecting the Danish Presidency to move on. It is not enough to refer to the previous achievements of the previous presidencies. The previous presidencies of the Council did not move on this, as almost all the Members of this House pointed out. We need a step forward. At the very least we need an urgent decision in order to go for a second reading and a compromise.


  Nicolai Wammen, formand for Rådet. − Hr. formand! Ærede medlemmer! Fru kommissær! Mange tak for denne vigtige drøftelse. Jeg vil gerne starte med at takke bl.a. hr. Gallagher, fru Lövin, hr. Davies, hr. Stevenson og hr. Dodds for opfordringen til at løse denne vigtige men også vanskelige sag vedrørende den flerårige plan for vestlig hestemakrel. Rådet har været længe om at fastlægge sin holdning i sagen. Imidlertid er der i Rådet som sagt opnået fremskridt i sagen på det seneste, og jeg forventer, at Rådet nu meget snart vil få fastlagt sin holdning. Rådets arbejdsgruppe påbegynder dette arbejde i denne uge. Næste skridt er godkendelsen af et forhandlingsmandat i Coreper. Herefter er Rådet parat til at samarbejde med Europa-Parlamentet om at finde en løsning på hestemakrelsagen. Forhåbentlig lykkes det at finde en løsning, som er acceptabel for både Europa-Parlamentet, Kommissionen og Rådet.

Vi er alle enige om, at flerårige forvaltningsplaner fortsat skal være et fundamentalt instrument i fiskeriforvaltningen, der sikrer fokus på de vigtige langsigtede bevaringsmæssige mål for fiskebestanden. Rådet vil derfor samarbejde med Europa-Parlamentet om en løsning for både hestemakrelplanen og andre flerårige planer. Jeg er derfor også helt enig med bl.a. hr. Davies og hr. Cadec i behovet for at sikre en bæredygtig fiskeribestand. Som hr. Davies sagde det: "Hvis der ikke er nogen fisk, så er der heller ikke noget fiskeri".

Rådet er fuldt ud opmærksomt på Europa-Parlamentets rolle i forbindelse med vedtagelsen af målene i den fælles fiskeripolitik, inklusive målene for flerårige forvaltningsplaner og tekniske bevaringsforanstaltninger. Disse mål skal vedtages af Rådet og Europa-Parlamentet i fællesskab, og Rådet lægger meget stor vægt på samarbejdet med Europa-Parlamentet i denne forbindelse.

Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om fastsættelse af TAC og kvoter vil jeg gerne understrege Rådets stærke forpligtelse til kun at vedtage foranstaltninger, som er fuldt ud i overensstemmelse med de relevante traktatbestemmelser, i fuld respekt for hver institutions rolle. Rådet vil naturligvis sikre, at den reformerede fælles fiskeripolitik er i overensstemmelse med traktaten og respekterer Europa-Parlamentets prærogativer. Det vil selvfølgelig også gælde, uanset hvilken form for procedure der vil være i fremtiden. Det gælder også en regionaliseret tilgang, som aktuelt overvejes inden for rammerne af reformen. Jeg ser derfor på vegne af Rådet frem til et tæt samarbejde med Kommissionen og Parlamentet om at finde løsninger på de vigtige spørgsmål, vi i dag har drøftet.


  El Presidente. − Para cerrar el debate se han presentado siete propuestas de resolución(1) de conformidad con el apartado 5 del artículo 115 del Reglamento.

Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar el jueves a partir del mediodía.




(1) Véase el Acta

Juridisk meddelelse - Databeskyttelsespolitik