Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 5 July 2012 - Strasbourg

9. Threat posed by chartering to flag state responsibilities under the CITES Convention (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission submitted by Gabriel Mato Adrover, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the threat posed by chartering to flag state responsibilities under the CITES Convention (O-000127/2012 – B7-0120/2012).

  Gabriel Mato Adrover, author. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I want to clearly express, with the resolution and conviction given to us by the force of reason, the Committee on Fisheries’ unanimous concern when it comes to possible agreements under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) on state responsibility for vessels’ activities.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the fishing regulations of both the European Union and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), there is an overall principle that is paradigm in the regulation to control fishing activities and the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing: it establishes that the flag state is primarily responsible for controlling its vessels’ activities, wherever they work. Based on this principle, the flag state must, for example, certify that their vessels’ catches conform to legislation. This catch certification is essential to these catches being unloaded in EU ports and being sent to market. However, it is also essential to respect the adopted conservation and fishing management measures, the objective of which is to ultimately bring fish stocks up to sustainable levels for fishing.

Many states without their own fleet must charter ships from other countries to fish, which is natural, as long as they comply with the legal requirements. That said, Commissioner, you are aware, as we all are, that many of these chartering states have neither the resources, the capacity, nor often the will to control the fishing activities of these vessels. You will agree that, if there is no guarantee of an effective control of fishing activities, it is absolutely impossible to fight against illegal fishing and it is very difficult to aid sustainability, which is the cornerstone of our common fisheries policy (CFP) and the focus of its reform, which we are currently debating in Parliament.

In the latest CITES meeting, the Working Group on Introduction from the Sea discussed the flag state’s responsibility over the species covered by CITES, and proposed to transfer this responsibility to the chartering state for CITES species caught on the high seas. This working group will report to the Standing Committee of the Convention in July 2012 and this committee, in turn, will report to the Conference of the Parties (COP) at the March 2013 meeting, when a definitive decision will be taken.

According to my information on the European Union, the Commission held a meeting with the Member States last Monday. During this meeting, the Commission appears to have inexplicably announced that there is no official position, that is, that the Member States are free to adopt whichever position they consider to be most convenient for their interests in the upcoming COP. If this is the case, Commissioner, you can understand that it is both disappointing and discouraging that the Commission has not taken a stand on such a vital issue, particularly during a period when we are reforming the CFP.

I have been informed that in the coming days, there will be a meeting between Member States and the Commission itself to adopt a common position. I think that there is still time to rectify the situation and for the Commission to send out a clear and resounding message, preventing the derogation of what has been the basic principle up until now: the flag state’s responsibility. This issue is a lot more important than some irresponsibly believe. If the proposal goes ahead, it will set a precedent that will undoubtedly cause great harm to our fisheries management and to the fight against illegal fishing. The Commission cannot allow all the work undertaken hitherto to be thrown away. It has been a joint effort on two aspects in which Parliament is completely involved and which also involves regional organisations such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) or the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) itself.

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will finish. Under no circumstances, in my opinion, should the charter state be granted responsibility for controlling their vessels’ activity; this must remain the flag state’s responsibility. This is the unequivocal position of the Committee on Fisheries of this Parliament, and I hope it is also that of the Commission itself. For that reason, I ask if the Commission could explain its position on the issue and how it will ensure that the primary responsibility of the flag state is maintained.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members. I would like firstly to thank Mr Mato Adrover for his question, which raises truly complex but important matters. The question relates, in reality, to two issues: on the one hand, to the latest results of the international negotiations on how the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) should apply to marine specimens caught on the high seas, and, on the other hand, to the need to ensure that the provisions on the chartering of vessels do not undermine the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

As we have heard, I attended Rio+20 less than two weeks ago. Many have criticised the summit but, in fact, the protection of high-seas biodiversity is an area in which the need for much more progress was universally recognised. The EU has always been at the forefront on this issue, and that will continue to be the case. The Commission believes that multilateral solutions coupled with rigorous enforcement are key instruments here.

The EU is a central player in regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), which typically cover the majority of commercially traded species, including tuna. The EU will pursue its ambitious policy in those organisations, pressing for the adoption of sound measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks, and for their strict implementation by all the parties. With regard to control, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides that authority over a ship rests with the flag state. All fisheries-specific UN instruments are based on that responsibility. The 2008 IUU Regulation is also based on this principle.

The EU shows the same level of ambition in relation to multilateral environmental agreements, including CITES, which regulates international trade in endangered species and currently covers 30 000 plant and animal species, among them approximately 100 aquatic species. CITES is widely seen as one of the most effective international agreements in the field of the environment, due notably to its effective compliance mechanisms and its universal coverage.

The Commission has no doubt that the European Union should be ready to use international fisheries instruments and CITES in pursuit of one and the same objective – namely, to ensure the long-term conservation of fish stocks on the high seas. This is vital not only for marine biodiversity, but also for fishing operators who depend on healthy stocks for the future of their economic activities.

Discussions have been taking place over the last 20 years on how CITES should apply to high-seas species. More precisely, the problematic point has been to define the state responsible for issuing the documentation required under CITES to allow trade in those species to take place.

The Commission has been very active in that debate. In line with the UNCLOS rules, the EU has consistently pushed for recognition of the flag state as the one responsible for issuing CITES documentation. In defending that position, we have encountered considerable opposition. Most other parties did not share our views and wanted this role to be assigned to the port state.

Where are we now in those discussions? After a long period of stalemate, the question has been intensely debated over the past three years in a specific working group. As a result, we are now close to an agreement. The proposal by the working group provides for flag states to play a central role in issuing the relevant CITES documents, with a derogation under which chartering states may also issue them subject to certain conditions.

Under the CITES proposal, the principle is that the flag state is responsible for issuing the CITES documentation – including in cases of chartering operations except in certain circumstances, and subject to conditions, under which the chartering country would be in charge of issuing it. This arrangement is a first, as existing RFMO rules do not allow for similar catch documentation to be issued by any authority other than that of the flag state.

The new conditions under which chartering countries would be entitled to issue CITES documentation are the following: first, the chartering operations need to be subject to a prior agreement between the chartering country and the flag state; second, this agreement needs to be consistent with the relevant RFMO framework on chartering; and third, it needs to be made available to the CITES secretariat, to the RFMO and to all the parties. In addition, the CITES secretariat would monitor these provisions and report on their implementation at the CITES Standing Committee meetings, thus ensuring proper monitoring and compliance.

The specific situation of chartering operations has been the subject of long and detailed discussions in numerous RFMOs and, subsequently, in the CITES working group. The EU traditionally supports a policy in RFMOs whereby it endeavours to restrict chartering practices, to avoid any risk of confusion as to which state is responsible for a given activity by a given ship at a given moment in time. However, it has also accepted that within some RFMOs, such practices exist, with the flag state remaining fully responsible for issuing catch documentation.

The EU therefore wants to make sure that any solution within CITES is compatible with the EU policy against IUU fishing and is respectful of flag state jurisdiction. The key consideration is to assess whether the safeguards contained in the proposal are sufficient in this respect. There was a discussion – which has been mentioned – with the Member States on this sensitive issue earlier this week. That meeting was inconclusive. The Commission is still considering the specific provisions on chartering contained in the proposal and has not yet reached a final conclusion – the only reason for this being the seriousness of the decision which we have to make.

The issue is on the agenda of the forthcoming CITES Standing Committee meeting on 23-27 July and, subsequently, on the agenda of the Conference of the Parties in March 2013. The issue of chartering will also be raised in various RFMOs in the coming months. The Commission will continue to work towards finalising its assessment in view of those meetings, and it will make sure that Parliament is kept informed about the development of the EU position on these matters.

It is essential that the Parties to CITES reach a common understanding on the concept of ‘introduction from the sea’ without undermining the fight against IUU, and the EU will seek to ensure that flag states retain the central responsibility here.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I want to thank the Commissioner for attending. I hope he can hear me. I can see the Commissioner leaving, which is really depressing, as what he said and the solution he proposed in this notorious compromise he supports so much is a solution that is totally against the principles of the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU).

That is why I would have liked the Commissioner to hear this debate. Moreover, the problem is that the Commission is handling all of this in a secretive, clandestine manner. It has been pure chance that some Members of Parliament, such as myself, have found out what has been going on. Neither the Commissioner for the Environment nor the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries have ever been here to raise this issue when they know that the fight against IUU fishing is an absolute priority for us in Parliament.

I would also like to know the reasons behind supporting the interests of countries involved in chartering ships, such as Brazil, New Zealand, Australia and the United States, when the price to pay will be to void Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, the objective of which is to combat illegal fishing. It will also weaken the European Union’s position in each and every international forum. That is the way it is. This issue precisely began to unravel in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

I also want to emphasise what has already been said, which is that this sets a very serious precedent, because all of this, as he said himself, will now be an issue for debate in all the international forums, especially in the regional fisheries organisations. Coincidentally, this will be discussed in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, given that it is one of the regional fisheries organisations where the most chartering occurs.

It should not be forgotten that the philosophy on which the fight against IUU fishing is based is precisely the double safety net of state control over the port and flag state control over worldwide fishing catches. That is what has sown the seeds of panic in the exporting countries, which have suddenly seen the attractive EU market close. That is the root of all these problems. I hope, therefore, that this will be fully resolved by other means.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, flag states assume the responsibility for their vessels’ compliance with international rules and regulations. The International Maritime Organisation conventions to improve maritime security and to protect the environment, the commitments laid down in the Maritime Labour Convention adopted by the International Labour Organisation, and the agreements concluded by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations on resource conservation and on the implementation of the international action plan against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing will not be effective if the flag Member States disregard their obligations and do not exercise the jurisdiction and control to which they are obliged.

Fishing is essential for flag states. The flag state is responsible for the vessels’ activity, which includes identification, compliance with management measures, declaration of catches, and the development of control and monitoring activities. The European Union’s regulation on illegal fishing is based on this principle.

I completely agree with the concern over the information with which, under the CITES framework, the principle of the flag state is being questioned. If this initiative succeeds, it would effectively set a serious precedent that would move to other international fora, such as regional fisheries organisations. The collapse of the relationship between fishing and the flag state will erode the fight against illegal fishing, leading to regulatory arbitrage, less transparency and less control.

For that reason, I believe that the Commission should react by making states adopt a common position and defend the compliance of their commitments to flag states.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I fully support the oral question and I want to commend the authors for the initiative.

I am strongly against the proposal relating to the practice of chartering which has emanated from the Conference of the Parties to the CITES Convention. Currently, as we know, the flag state has responsibility for controlling the activities of a fishing vessel, no matter where the vessel operates. This includes declaring catches, enforcing management measures and control activities. This is a long-established principle which is enshrined in both international and EU law, including the regulation to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) and the FAO international plan of action to deter IUU fishing.

The Commissioner made reference to international law and the necessity to abide by this, but I understand that international law supports flag ships.

The flag ship state has the primary responsibility for preventing, deterring and eliminating IUU fishing. The alternative is that the coastal state that charters the fishing vessel would be responsible. Often, coastal states charter vessels to exploit fisheries, but not in a sustainable way and, of course, to expand fishing activities, so many coastal states lack the will and ability to control illegal fishing.

Such a move by CITES is difficult to comprehend and even more difficult to justify and would certainly threaten the sustainability of fish stocks, particularly on the high seas. It is extremely important for the Commission to vigorously oppose the move by CITES and I am aware that the Chair of the Committee on Fisheries has issued an invitation to the Commissioner to attend a meeting of the committee in the near future. While he has not responded today while in the Chamber, I hope he will respond favourably and positively in order that we can have a more in-depth discussion in committee.

The Commission must adopt a position. There is only one position to adopt and we all know which one that is. The Commissioner says that Parliament will be kept fully informed. It is important that we are kept informed, but it is more important that Parliament’s views, which I believe would be almost unanimous, should be taken into consideration.

  Isabella Lövin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the EU regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing was a major step forward globally in the battle against IUU.

The Commission has been working very hard to convince both its Member States and third countries about how to implement the requirements of catch documents signed by the flag states, and some countries have been lobbying extremely hard to have exemptions from this rule, in order to let chartering states have the right to issue catch documents.

The concept of ‘chartering state’ does not even exist in international law; on the other hand, the concepts of ‘flag state’ and ‘flag state responsibility’ have been built up through hard work and international negotiations over decades, and now a small exemption, as proposed by the CITES working group, threatens to set a precedent and unravel all the work that has been done up till now.

We are all aware that the issue of chartering states is emerging at the speed of lightning in many of the world’s regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs). Far too many countries would immediately use the argument that CITES allows this exemption as an excuse to introduce the same logic in the RFMOs, allowing chartering states to issue catch documents. This would totally undermine the IUU Regulation.

I add my voice to those asking what consequences this could have for flag state responsibility in commercial fleets. We should not underestimate this factor. The confusion over who bears responsibility when it comes to oil spills or dumping of toxic waste is already at a maximum with ships owned in one country, flagged to another, operating in a third and landing in a fourth, with a crew and beneficial owners in a fifth.

So what is the problem in CITES? It is not clear to me. Is it that a few countries, so-called ‘chartering states’, want to facilitate their administrative burden when they have to issue catch documents on a few hundred tonnes of endangered species of sharks that are on the CITES Annex 2 list? To let them do that, the world should not be ready to unravel international work on tightening the law against IUU – which actually accounts for one fifth of the world’s fish catches.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, the risks associated with imposing on flag states the obligations concerning the chartering of vessels that are contained in the CITES convention will create a precedent with an enormous impact on the functioning of the fishing industry. Consideration should be given to the transfer of supervision and controls, as well as responsibility to Member States, who will pass this responsibility on to shipowners.

In no way should the regulations contained in the CITES Convention be undermined. They are of enormous importance for endangered species of flora and fauna and should definitely be upheld. What is concerning is the fact that responsibility is again being transferred to flag states in Member States. It should be noted that, as a result of over-regulation, the entire maritime sector already incurs enormous costs that affect how it operates. The directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims, the protocol amending the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of an accident, the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage – these are just a few examples to give an idea of the enormous number of regulations relating to the maritime sector.

The sense of the convention cannot be questioned but attention should also be given to competitiveness and the impact of these regulations on product prices. The European Commission’s objective cannot be to liberalise markets by reducing duty on imported goods while, at the same time, increasing EU regulations that place additional cost burdens on European production. Once again, I call on the Commission to promote European manufacturing and the European labour market through appropriate regulation.

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) Mr President, according to previously established practice in fisheries, responsibility for a vessel rests with the country under whose flag it flies. In the case of a chartered vessel, responsibility for the activities of the vessel rests with the state in which the vessel is leased.

Within the framework of updating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, however, discussion has begun on a fundamental change to this rule, under which responsibility for a chartered vessel would rest with the country in which the vessel is owned.

I admit I have some doubts as to whether states that have contractually chartered a vessel to another state might succeed in monitoring the activities performed by that vessel. I could cite as an example my own country, which is located in the interior of Europe and has no access to the sea, but which owns a marine fleet. Naturally, it has no effective possibility of monitoring these ships, because they are chartered out and operated by other countries.

It therefore seems to me that by accepting the proposed change to responsibility for the actions of chartered vessels in the convention, we would be creating a legal situation where no one would really be responsible for the activities of chartered vessels.

  Alain Cadec (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, neither Ms Damanaki nor Mr Potočnik is present here … No comment ...

In European as in international law of the sea, the flag state is responsible for controlling the activities of its fishing vessels as regards vessel registration, fishing authorisations, fishing registers, and, in particular, catch certificates. It is, in fact, the responsibility of the flag state to provide accurate information about the legality of their catches and to have this information validated by their flag state.

EU legislation on the issuance of export certificates is clear. Products cannot be imported unless they have a catch certificate attesting to their legality. This certificate is issued by the flag state of the fishing vessels that have caught the fish concerned in line with its duty under international law. In short, international law requires the flag state to comply with international rules on conservation and management of fisheries resources.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has prepared a dangerous text for all those working in the fisheries sector under the external aspects of the common fisheries policy. Were it to be adopted, this text would enable the state chartering the vessel, and not the flag state, to be responsible for the vessel’s activities. The chartering state would also be able to issue export certificates even though it does not have the resources to control the legality of the products transported. In reality, the majority of chartering states do not have the financial or technical resources to control fishing activities

This text could therefore set a dangerous precedent, leaving a legal loophole in EU law. The EU’s regulation to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, which is based solely on the responsibilities of the flag state, would no longer have any meaning. To give the right to chartering states to sign export certificates would be to open up a loophole in the legislation to combat IUU fishing

The European Union already imports 70% of the aquaculture and fisheries products it consumes. It must not, in addition, allow products that have been fished illegally and criminally from entering its territory. However, this is the risk we run if the CITES text is adopted. We must not open our doors to products that do not comply with EU health, social and environmental rules.

  Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I take this opportunity as a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and a Member of the Committee on Fisheries to express my opinion in Parliament on the measures that must be taken in the next Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to prevent the marketing of marine species caught in an accidental, unregulated and illegal manner, so they can neither be exported nor imported, specifically those from chartered operations.

The European Union has defended the role of flag states for years, in the cases of chartered operations on the high seas, in compliance with the regulation on illegal fishing and International Law. The EU must continue to intensify the greatest collaboration possible between flag and chartering states in order to ensure control, monitoring, surveillance and compliance with regulations and in order to conserve our marine ecosystem and fishing sustainability.

The current regulation is a good tool with which to achieve those aims. In my opinion, it should be maintained until an agreement is reached at the next working group in March which obliges all states, both flag states and chartering states, to comply with the regulations to ensure that endangered marine species are neither caught nor transported.

We are currently aware that the best guarantee for the fight against illegal fishing continues to be that the flag state is responsible for the entire process. We should, however, work towards a legal framework that pursues illegal fishing and the transportation of catches of endangered species, thereby complying with the Europe 2020 strategy, ensuring the sustainability of fishing and the protection of the marine environment.

  Struan Stevenson (ECR). – Mr President, this is an extremely complex issue that has caused much debate and discussion within CITES for more than ten years now. We are dealing here with the whole question of who does what when catching fish in international waters and then landing them in a port, particularly in respect of marine species listed in CITES Appendix 2.

Last year, the CITES Standing Committee came very close to endorsing the recommendations agreed by the working group that flag states should be responsible for export certificates, but, at the last minute, Brazil and the Oceania region brought up the question of chartering and effectively threw a spanner in the works. They wanted special provisions for chartering vessels fishing in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Now, the issue was referred to a working group which met recently in the US and, although the majority of countries were in agreement on provisions for chartering vessels with special safeguards, including consultation with our fishery management organisations and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, there was no overall consensus. The issue is now on the agenda for the upcoming Standing Committee of CITES, which is supposed to endorse the text and refer it to the Conference of the Parties next year for adoption.

Just when everyone thought that the issue was now closed, the new provision of giving the flag state the responsibility of issuing certificates for marine specimens caught by another flag state, the chartered one, is now being seen as highly risky.

Several EU Member States have raised concerns that this would cause conflict with existing provisions for our FMOs as well as with our own regulations to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and would risk creating distortions to the rules of origin. Surely the most important issue here is not to lose sight of the main purpose of CITES.

I am not reassured by what I heard Commissioner Potočnik say at the opening of this debate today and I hope the Commission can give us some further reassurance that they are taking this matter very seriously.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, the proposal to transfer responsibility for vessels and their respective catches from the flag state to the chartering state will inevitably lead to serious problems due to the latter having limited, or even no, ability to control its fishing fleet.

In the particular case of fishing vessels operating on the high seas, where the control of the fleet and its catches is even more complex and demanding, that proposal could create the conditions for widespread non-compliance. In this context, it is also important to stress that some of the species affected by this proposal are ocean migratory fish, which means that they tend to be caught by fishing vessels on the high seas.

In view of this, and to avoid an unacceptable increase in unreported and unregulated illegal fishing, particularly on the high seas, the Commission should vehemently oppose this proposal, as we are doing here with a consensus that stretches from left to right around this Chamber.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me first just spend fifteen seconds to explain why Commissioner Potočnik and Commissioner Damanaki cannot be here at present. It is, of course, not because of a lack of interest, but because, later today, there is the formal takeover of the Cyprus Presidency, and that is being marked in Cyprus where the presence of the whole Commission is needed. So I am on duty today, but I can assure you that if Mr Potočnik had had any chance of staying, he would very much have liked to do so.

Mr Stevenson has just highlighted very clearly how complex this issue is, and I take the point that we should not lose sight of what is at stake here and also how long this matter has been with CITES. That is also the reason why it is so difficult now to formulate a clear-cut position. As Mr Potočnik said, it is still being debated internally in the Commission and between Member States.

Having said that, it is a very timely debate which has been raised today and I thank the people behind the oral question for that, because it is also a reality that the final deadline for the COP is coming up next March, so there is time to fine-tune the EU position on this.

In finalising the position, several elements will have to be considered. The central role of the flag state has been pointed out very clearly here and I want to recall that this principle has not yet been agreed by all countries: currently, each country goes its own way in CITES. Therefore, the importance of reaching a common interpretation of the concept of introduction from the sea in CITES is indispensable to make it operational for the safeguarding of marine species.

These elements need to be put together in the best possible manner in developing the position of the European Union ahead of the COP in March next year in full coherence with our efforts to combat illegal fishing.

I, and also the experts here, will take care that all your considerations, all your concerns are brought back to both Commissioners contributing to the internal deliberations on how to get a strong EU position prior to the March COP next year. So thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to listen to your input to this debate.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – In fisheries, the flag state is ultimately responsible for the activities of a vessel, including declaring catches, enforcing management measures, control activities, etc. Both the EU’s IUU Regulation to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and the FAO guidelines on IUU are based upon this principle. This long-established principle is threatened by the practice of chartering. If a state engaged in fishing on the high seas charters a vessel flying the flag of another state, the flag state and not the chartering state must be responsible for the vessel’s actions.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.30 and resumed at 12.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President