El Presidente. − El punto siguiente del orden del día es el debate sobre el informe de Struan Stevenson, en nombre de la Comisión de Pesca, sobre la propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo que modifica el Reglamento (CE) nº 1300/2008 del Consejo, de 18 de diciembre de 2008, por el que se establece un plan plurianual para las poblaciones de arenque distribuidas al oeste de Escocia y para las pesquerías de estas poblaciones (COM(2011)0760 - C7-0432/2011 - 2011/0345(COD)) (A7-0145/2012)
Struan Stevenson, rapporteur. − Mr President, the Danish Presidency informed me some weeks ago that there will be no fresh reading agreement on my report on a multiannual plan for west of Scotland herring.
This follows a similar blockage in Council on the implementation of Pat the Cope Gallagher’s report on a multiannual plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel, which has been log-jammed for the past three years. A report by Ms Bilbao Barandica on a multiannual plan for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay has been similarly blocked.
This is a pattern which has emerged not only in respect of fisheries reports, but across all the work of our parliamentary committees where delegated acts and implementing acts have been disputed.
My understanding is that the Council refuses to accept that, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, it no longer has the sole right to determine such matters. I have suggested in my report on west of Scotland herring that, via delegated acts, the Commission will evaluate the implementation of multi-annual plans in full consultation with the Pelagic RAC, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas and the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. Parliament and the Council can veto the Commission recommendations under delegated acts. The alternative is to use implementing acts which give the Council more say in the evaluation of multiannual plans, but in this case Parliament can only give advice to the Commission and – of course – our advice can always be ignored.
It appears that this blockage in the Council is emanating from the official working groups, rather than from the Ministers themselves. The working groups are determined to retain ownership of all multiannual plans through the use of implementing acts under the terms of Article 43(3) TFEU, which gives them sole competence. Parliament and the Commission are demanding the right to deal with these multiannual plans under Article 43(2) TFEU, under the ordinary legislative procedure. Even the Council’s own legal services agree with Parliament and the Commission on this issue, but the Council remains steadfast in its opposition to delegated acts and the blockage seems set to continue.
In respect of the current reform of the common fisheries policy, this legislative blockage is very dangerous indeed. To bring stability to the market and to provide fishermen and processors with the necessary long-term security that high levels of investment in the industry require, multiannual management plans must be introduced for the main commercial stocks. How can we argue that there is not enough money in the EMFF to reintroduce subsidised new-build or modernisation for EU fishing vessels when we are unable to offer our fishermen the reassurance that they can borrow large sums of money from the bank to build or modernise their own vessels based on multiannual plans for fisheries management. No EU bank, particularly during the current economic crisis, will lend a fisherman up to EUR 2 million to build a new white fish vessel, unless he can show that there is a multiannual stock management plan in place that will give a concrete assurance of sustainable fishing over a long period.
The current situation is untenable and puts at risk the entire CFP reform process. If we end up going to the European courts to resolve this crisis, which looks increasingly likely, it could derail the entire timetable for CFP reform, and it is worth noting that we have no legal basis for a new reformed CFP after 1 January 2014. It is essential, therefore, that we resolve this issue. I look to the Cypriot Presidency to knock heads together in the Council to end this legislative log jam.
John Dalli, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Stevenson, and the Committee on Fisheries for their work on this proposal.
With this proposal, we are aligning the management plan for west of Scotland herring to the Lisbon Treaty. As with previous management plans, we again face the risk of an institutional disagreement between Parliament and the Council.
I welcome the fact that Parliament is fully exercising its new rights under the Treaty. As my colleague, Commissioner Damanaki, has said before, the Commission fully shares Parliament’s position that multiannual management plans should be adopted under the ordinary legislative proposal.
I would also like to thank Parliament for supporting the Commission’s empowerment to adjust parameters in the management plan in case science evolves. This will help ensure that the management plan is adaptive and reflects at all times the best scientific information available.
I would like to refer to some specific amendments. First, regarding the definition of the stock and the area covered by the plan, the rapporteur’s proposed amendment is acceptable. Second, regarding the duration of the empowerment for the Commission, the proposal of a three-year renewable empowerment period is acceptable. However, the management plan foresees a four-year cycle for its review and evaluation. Therefore, it might be useful if the two cycles coincided.
Finally, I would like to react to the proposed amendment whereby the Commission, before adopting delegated acts, would have the obligation to consult the Scientific, Technical, and Economic Committee on Fisheries and the North-Western Waters Regional Advisory Council.
Under the Common Understanding on delegated acts, agreed by Parliament, Council and Commission in May last year, the Commission must ‘carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level’ before adopting delegated acts. The proposed amendment would go beyond this obligation and would limit the Commission’s discretion to seek the best advice in each case. Therefore, we are unfortunately not in a position to support this amendment.
I would again like to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for their work and look forward to the discussion on this subject.
Werner Kuhn, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte dem Berichterstatter, Herrn Stevenson, herzlich dafür danken, dass er mit seinem Bericht natürlich auch die zentrale Situation der Fischereipolitik in Europa aufgegriffen hat und diese auch an dem Beispiel des Heringsbestands westlich von Schottland dargestellt hat.
Wir sind zurzeit in der Diskussion, wie wir in der gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik von 2014 bis 2020 effektiver arbeiten wollen. Hier ist sicher auch noch mal klar geworden, dass man dort, wo uns dieser Bestand im Atlantik zur Verfügung steht, diesen mit entsprechenden Fangquoten bearbeiten kann und natürlich dann auch den höchstmöglichen Dauerertrag erzielen kann. Wir setzen alles daran, dass unsere Fischereibestände auch in der Zukunft für unsere Fischereibetriebe sozusagen die Lebens- und Ökonomiegrundlage bleiben.
Da diskutieren wir jetzt über Rückwürfe. Sollten wir denn tatsächlich auch die Ressourcen, die uns das Meer zur Verfügung stellt, nicht effizienter nutzen? Da diskutieren wir über übertragbare Fischereirechte. Was passiert mit kleinen Unternehmen, die letztendlich in der Situation sind, gebe ich auf, weil ich in Rente gehen will, oder habe ich einen Nachfolger dabei? Dann sind wir natürlich auch in der Situation, dass wir die regionale Fischerei, die Regionalisierung auch mit entsprechenden Managementplänen nach vorn bringen wollen, dass nicht alles zentral geregelt wird, sondern dass wir hier auch schon klar Position beziehen und sagen: Nicht nur die Wissenschaft hat entsprechenden Einfluss, sondern wir wollen in den RAC auch mit der Erfahrung der bodenständigen und berufsständischen Fischerei arbeiten. Das hat Herr Stevenson auch exzellent herausgearbeitet. Wenn wir dann noch genau die Definition für den Heringsbestand haben und dabei berücksichtigen, dass der natürlich auch Wanderbewegungen ausgesetzt ist, dann haben wir ein gutes Ergebnis erzielt. Allen Beteiligten ein herzliches Dankeschön.
Guido Milana, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io ringrazio l'on. Stevenson per l'ottimo lavoro e l'impostazione che ha dato a questa sua relazione, che affronta sostanzialmente le due questioni principali. Qui non si tratta di un semplice piano di gestione di aringhe, ma si tratta sostanzialmente di garantire un futuro ai pescatori, per alcuni versi, e una pianificazione nel mare, per fare in modo che questo, in maniera pluriennale, abbia le sue tutele.
Ma il punto chiave di questa relazione è e resta la questione degli atti delegati. Io credo che il Consiglio debba accettare l'impostazione data dal trattato di Lisbona e penso pure che sia giunta l'ora che il Parlamento in qualche modo, con una voce forse più autorevole di quella del dibattito all'interno della commissione per la pesca o di un dibattito su una relazione che riguarda le aringhe, abbia il coraggio di prendere una posizione molto chiara e forte rispetto alla questione degli atti delegati. Noi rivendichiamo il diritto che su queste materie ci sia davvero la procedura ordinaria. So perfettamente che la questione riguarda, oltre a tantissimi altri settori della pesca, che tra l'altro si aggraveranno a seguito della riforma che è in corso, anche questioni attinenti all'agricoltura e ad altri temi. Il passaggio essenziale è il rispetto della volontà del Parlamento.
Pat the Cope Gallagher, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all I want to congratulate Mr Stevenson on the preparation and presentation of his report. I fully support the recommendations contained in the report and, in particular, the need to consult with the Pelagic RAC and the STECF on a regular basis. The advice and input of stakeholders is invaluable and results in greater compliance and support for sustainable fisheries management.
The rapporteur explicitly refers to the ordinary legislative procedure because of the Council’s refusal to respect the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. As Commissioner Dalli has said, there is an interinstitutional disagreement. Is it a question of the Council not being prepared to cede power? The loser is the fishing sector and sustainable fisheries.
As the rapporteur for a similar report dealing with the long-term management plan for Atlantic and horse mackerel, I too have experienced exactly the same problem. This is, of course, a crisis and must be resolved sooner rather than later. It does not appear that it is going to be resolved in the mandate of this Presidency but, having met with the Cypriot Minister yesterday, I hope he will take ownership of this and try to resolve it.
In relation to horse mackerel, the Council favours the removal of all references to the harvest control rule which is, of course, so important because mackerel is known as a determinate spawner and the harvest control rule is the one which we should follow. Ironically, while I agree on a TAC and quotas for horse mackerel over the last few years, the Council have adopted this principle but will not accept it.
In relation to the meeting in Luxembourg of 12 June 2012, I have observed how certain Ministers have spurned the outcome of the Council meeting. The manner in which some Ministers completely ignored the role of Parliament as a co-legislator does not bode well for the negotiations which lie ahead on the reform of the common fisheries policy.
Finally, we all support the minimisation of discards as this is in everyone’s interest. The position adopted by the Council in this case is flawed. Avoidance, minimisation and escapement in the first instance is key. Landing dead fish does not contribute to sustainable fisheries management. We must endeavour to avoid the fish in order to allow them to survive, grow and provide fish for the future.
I am disappointed that the Council is not here today, because our problem and our difference is with the Council, not with the Commission. I hope that it gets a very clear message from this morning’s session that it must engage with us and resolve this issue.
Ian Hudghton, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, this report was unanimously adopted in the Committee on Fisheries, and that is not a frequent occurrence on fisheries issues, which can be highly controversial at times.
Our rapporteur says in the report that his report is about safeguarding Parliament’s rights under the Treaty of Lisbon. The fact is that the Lisbon Treaty has created a confused and unsatisfactory situation in relation to fisheries management decision-making.
The CFP reform process provides an opportunity for us to re-examine and radically change the whole structure of fisheries management by sweeping away the over-centralised methods which have so badly failed us in the past. Instead of obsessively safeguarding the rights of EU institutions, we ought to be designing a framework of decision-making which will actually work, and which will succeed in its objectives. In my view, that means maximum decentralisation so that Europe’s fishing nations can be empowered, working together in logical sea basins to conserve stocks for their own long-term benefit; and yet the Commission claims that the Lisbon Treaty prevents them from proposing as much decentralisation as they would like. Parliament’s legal services take a different view. The result is confusion and endless wrangling about EU institutions’ rights.
I hope that this Parliament, as part of the CFP reform process, will put the preservation of fish stocks, and therefore fishing-dependent communities, first, before this obsessively protectionist view on our own input and our own centralised management systems which have miserably failed in the past.
Lucas Hartong (NI). - Voorzitter, de PVV waarschuwde een aantal jaren geleden dat het Verdrag van Lissabon de lidstaten in grote problemen zou gaan brengen. We werden uitgelachen, maar ons gelijk wordt vandaag weer aangetoond. Inzake het Europees visserijbeleid had de Raad zeggenschap over heel wat zaken, maar door het Verdrag van Lissabon wordt die bevoegdheid vandaag ook nog weggegeven aan de Commissie. Een kardinale fout, zo zal blijken.
In de kustwateren van Schotland zwemt haring rond; heel veel haring. De Commissie moet nu de bevoegdheid krijgen om vast te stellen hoeveel de maximale vissterfte mag bedragen en hoeveel jonge visjes geboren mogen worden. Als de haring besluit om naar een ander gebied te verhuizen, dan mag de toepassing van het plan niet in gevaar komen.
Voorzitter, dit is werkelijk te gek voor woorden. Als dit Parlement meent zelfs de biologische eigenschappen van de haring te kunnen reguleren, dan is het knettergek geworden - al dan niet op basis van het verfoeide Verdrag van Lissabon. Het zij maar weer eens genoteerd.
Overigens is de PVV van mening dat het hele EU-visserijbeleid gewoon terug zou moeten onder nationaal beleid. De lidstaten kunnen het namelijk veel beter, zo blijkt ook weer vandaag.
Alain Cadec (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je tiens à remercier Struan Stevenson pour son rapport. Ce rapport sur le plan pluriannuel sur les stocks de hareng à l'Ouest de l'Écosse témoigne de la place importante du Parlement en ce qui concerne les plans pluriannuels dans la procédure de codécision. Je me félicite de l'importance accordée au plan pluriannuel dans cette réforme en cours. C'est une approche de bon sens.
Dans le cadre de cette réforme, notre objectif numéro 1 est la préservation des ressources – certains collègues l'ont déjà dit. Cet objectif ne pourra être réalisé que main dans la main avec les professionnels du secteur de la pêche. Mardi, les États membres se sont positionnés en faveur de l'interdiction des rejets en mer. C'est un très mauvais signal de la part du Conseil. Cependant, je rappelle que cette réforme, le Parlement la codécide avec le Conseil. La politique de rejet zéro, telle que proposée par la Commission, est irréaliste et dangereuse pour l'activité de la pêche.
Ce que je propose, en ce qui me concerne, au Parlement, c'est une réduction significative mais progressive des rejets. Plutôt que d'adopter une position dogmatique, la solution à ce problème des rejets ne pourra être réellement envisagée que par une approche pragmatique.
Enfin, le projet de la Commission nous propose la mise en place de concessions de pêche transférables. Cette proposition, à elle seule, constitue une menace très grave pour notre modèle de pêche. La Commission veut remettre la gestion de la ressource entre les seules mains du marché. Je pense que c'est aux États membres de décider de la gestion des droits de pêche, comme c'est déjà le cas aujourd'hui d'ailleurs. Nous ne parviendrons pas à une réforme réellement efficace et juste en affaiblissant l'activité de la pêche.
Chris Davies (ALDE). - Mr President, at 4.30 yesterday morning, Ministers in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council finished their deliberations on the common fisheries policy and put great emphasis, for hour after hour, on the need for a fishery-by-fishery approach based upon multiannual plans. Of course, all this was a chimera, a nonsense, a fraud, so long as they continue to block the creation of these multiannual plans.
The Council wants to be able to continue to allow Ministers to set TACs and quotas each year because they have been a brilliant success over the years. We know they have – every year they have met in December and set TACs and quotas above the scientific recommendations, which is the reason we have such a depletion of our fish stocks today. Not surprisingly, some Members of this Parliament would like to tie the hands of Ministers a little and commit them to long-term management plans that make some sense, but we recognise what the Treaty says, and there was a genuine dispute between the powers of Parliament and the powers of the Council which must be resolved, and will only be resolved by us getting round the table and negotiating. Struan Stevenson said that he was looking to the Cypriot Presidency to put this on the agenda, but I look to the Danish Presidency. You have two weeks. I do not ask you to seek a solution, but what I do ask the Presidency to do is to come forward with a procedure for reaching a solution. The sooner the Council and Parliament sit round the table and start negotiating, the sooner we will be able to put multiannual plans at the heart of a sensible fishing policy.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Lucas Hartong (NI), "blauwe kaart"-vraag. – Geachte collega, ik heb hier voor me een artikel uit een Nederlands dagblad met een vooraanstaand visserijbioloog, de heer Ad Corten, die schrijft dat de Noordzee barstensvol haring zit. U zei zojuist dat er juist depletion plaatsvindt van visbestanden; dat is dus absoluut niet waar. Hoe komt dat? Omdat vaak de onderzoekscommissies die het moeten onderzoeken niet zelfstandig zijn. Wilt u daar even commentaar op geven?
Chris Davies (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, according to the Commission, there are now some 20 fish stocks in the whole of the European Union which are at maximum sustainable yield. This is a huge improvement on the situation of previous years where there have been virtually no stocks at maximum sustainable yield. Twenty out of 250 or so is progress: small, but progress nonetheless, and I believe – though others who know the Scottish situation better than myself can comment – that herring are one of the fish stocks which are currently in a better state than hitherto.
Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). - Voorzitter, commissaris, rapporteur Stevenson, de Schotse haring is erg populair en wordt in Nederland als Hollandse Nieuwe verkocht en geconsumeerd. Ons haringseizoen is zaterdag met vlaggetjesdag begonnen. Welnu, meneer Stevenson, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". Wat kunnen we zeggen? Hij heeft dit jaar een uitstekende kwaliteit, is smeuïg en heeft een vetpercentage van 18%.
De toegestane vangsthoeveelheden zijn sinds jaren op een laag niveau vastgesteld en we zien nu dat er veel meer haring is dan ooit tevoren verwacht. Daar zit tegelijkertijd ook mijn boodschap. De wetenschappelijke kwaliteit van die voorspellingen moet beter en kan ook beter en daarom is het goed dat het Parlement daarvoor ook zeggenschap eist. Meer zeggenschap, niet alleen maar bij de Commissie.
Het is belangrijk dat we deze rechten, die voortvloeien uit het Verdrag van Lissabon als Parlement, zoals in het verslag-Stevenson is aangegeven, ook uitoefenen. Het kan beter, het moet beter. De heer Stevenson heeft gelijk met zijn aanpak en we zullen die lijn gewoon moeten doorzetten. Al praten we tot drie uur in de nacht, het Parlement heeft die rechten en we moeten die lijn dus gewoon doorzetten.
PRZEWODNICZY: JACEK PROTASIEWICZ Wiceprzewodniczący
Uwagi z sali
Seán Kelly (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, níl an t-eolas céanna agamsa agus atá ag daoine cosúil le Pat the Cope Gallagher agus an tUasal Stevenson ar iascaireacht. Ach ós rud é go bhfuil a lán iascairí i mo cheantar féin, is maith liom na díospóireachtaí seo a leanúint agus cuireann cuid de na rudaí a chloisim ar maidin saghas déistin orm.
Having wonderful experts here in Parliament who take a great interest in fishing, it is somewhat disappointing to hear of their frustration at being blocked by the Council, as indicated by Mr Stevenson and Mr Gallagher amongst others. I do not think this is acceptable. The spirit and the letter of the Lisbon Treaty must be observed and certainly we, as a parliament, have to stand up for our rights to ensure that there is fair play all round.
We have a huge task at hand regarding fishing and we have to look at the issues mentioned here this morning. Multiannual management plans are essential, as is dealing with discards and so forth. I look forward to the next two presidencies – the Cypriot and the Irish – hopefully doing that.
Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE). - Señor Presidente, estamos hablando de arenques, estamos hablando de planes multianuales pero, fundamentalmente, estamos hablando de fuero, de las competencias de este Parlamento y de la necesidad de que el Consejo asuma y —lo que es más importante— respete lo establecido en el Tratado de Lisboa y, además, respete también lo que han decidido los propios servicios jurídicos.
Tenemos codecisión y, frente a ello, una decisión política del Consejo no solo está dejando en entredicho las competencias de este Parlamento —algo que, desde luego, no podemos ni debemos admitir— sino, lo que es más importante, está poniendo en peligro el futuro de asuntos tan fundamentales como la propia reforma de la política común de pesca. Yo me dirijo hoy a los ausentes del Consejo y también al señor Comisario, creo que el tema tiene mucha más importancia de la que algunos le están dando. Reflexionen sobre ello.
(Koniec procedury pytań z sali)
John Dalli, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their contributions to this discussion. The debate shows that this House attaches a lot of importance to institutional questions.
I would like to reassure all Members that the Commission remains very open to supporting any solution that Parliament is able to find with the Council to solve the issue of multiannual plans. The longer this deadlock remains, the more difficult it will be to explain to citizens that we cannot move ahead with these important fisheries management tools to ensure the sustainability of stocks.
Struan Stevenson, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Dalli and all my colleagues who participated in the debate.
We have heard repeatedly from colleagues in this debate that the key issue is the blockage by the Council of these multiannual plans. We attach such importance to this issue that a delegation led by the chairman of the Committee on Fisheries, Gabriel Mato Adrover, went yesterday to see President Schulz himself. He was hugely supportive and said that he has made it his absolute priority that EU legislative democracy lies with this House. We are the directly elected representatives of the citizens of Europe.
It is a disgrace that we are having this debate when Parliament and the Commission are in full agreement and there is no one from the Danish Presidency sitting here, or indeed listening to this debate. They are not treating this with sufficient seriousness. President Schulz agreed to raise this matter with the incoming Cypriot Presidency and, if necessary, to raise it with Council President Herman van Rompuy himself. We need to rattle heads together and get this logjam unblocked.
I would like to raise one final point. Commissioner Dalli, you said that you were accepting – and I am grateful to you – most of the amendments in my report, but you were a bit worried that we were going too far in asking the Commission to consult with STECF, ICES and the Pelagic RAC. I think it is absolutely essential – and you have heard this from many of the speakers in this debate – that the stakeholders themselves must be consulted. It is avoiding consultation with the stakeholders that has led to many of the problems in the fisheries sector. I would ask you to look carefully at the result of today’s votes in the House, and I hope the Commission may then think again.
President. − The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at noon.
Written statements (Rule 149)
David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I agree with the Commission’s proposal in that it suggests the use of delegated acts to adapt fishing mortality rates and associated spawning stock biomass levels to scientific findings, and the ordinary legislative procedure in order to make other changes to the Plan. The simplification of the evaluation procedure seems reasonable, as does the Commission’s intention to keep the Plan applicable even if the stock migrates into another area.