Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 11 September 2012 - Strasbourg

20. Measures in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks - Common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products - Conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources - Reform of the common fisheries policy (debate)

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

– A7-0146/2012 by Pat the Cope Gallagher, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain measures in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks;

– A7-0217/2012 by Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products;

– A7-0225/2012 by Carl Haglund, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on reporting obligations under Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy;

– A7-0253/2012 by Nikolaos Salavrakos, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the reform of the common fisheries policy - overarching communication.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher, rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the regulation on trade measures is a significant piece of legislation aimed at protecting our common fish stocks. Commissioner Damanaki put forward the proposal in a direct response to the overfishing of mackerel by Iceland and the Faroe Islands in the north-east Atlantic.

I was then appointed by the committee to oversee the legislation. From the outset, I received the strongest possible support from my colleagues. As a committee, we proposed broad and hard-hitting measures building on the proposal by the Commission.

The trialogue that followed between Parliament, the Presidency and the Commission was a success, as all sides entered into talks with a spirit of determination to reach a compromise. The compromise proves that codecision between Parliament and the Council in the area of fisheries does work and can result in a better, stronger and more effective legislation. This is a positive sign ahead of the talks on the reform of the common fisheries policy, despite the unacceptable blockage that continues to exist with several long-term management plans.

The agreed text will enable the Union to enforce measures against countries or territories that blatantly disregard the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. The agreement includes quantitative restrictions on fish imports from the stock of common interest and associated species into the EU from the country or territory engaged in unsustainable fishing practices. Significantly, the term ‘associated species’ is broadly defined in the regulation to cover a range of species other than mackerel, for example, and it is based on FAO rules.

Restrictions will apply to the use of EU ports and on the sale of fishing vessels, fishing equipment and the supplies to the country or territory deemed to be overfishing. In addition, EU vessels will be prohibited under this regulation from reflagging their vessels to the country or territory engaged in unsustainable practices. The regulation also foresees that further measures may be applied under the scope of the regulation if the initial measures prove to be ineffective.

Parliament has now equipped the Commissioner with an effective and a meaningful instrument designed to prevent unsustainable fishing practices. While the regulation may be used against any third countries, the situation in the north-east Atlantic is of immediate concern to all of us. Iceland has unilaterally increased its mackerel catch from 363 tonnes in 2005 to 147 000 tonnes in 2012. The Faroese quota in mackerel has soared from 27 830 tonnes in 2009 to 149 000 tonnes in 2012. I am extremely disappointed by the failure of the coastal states to reach an agreement in London on 3 September and I would appreciate learning from the Commissioner her plans to move the situation forward.

I would like, of course subject to time, to take the opportunity to speak briefly on the common market organisation for fisheries and agriculture products and the report by Struan Stevenson, which is an excellent basis for a final agreement with the Council.

The committee adopted several important amendments to the Commission proposal, including the principles of minimisation and avoidance in the first instance and the landing of discarded fish. The committee also adopted clear and understandable labelling on fisheries products. Unfortunately, I do not have time to speak on the other reports. Suffice to say that I congratulate the rapporteurs for their excellent work.

  Nils Torvalds, rapporteur. – (SV) Mr President, fisheries policy is one of Europe’s greatest failures. The fundamental problem is widespread overfishing in all EU seas. That is by far the greatest challenge we have to deal with when we reform our common fisheries policy.

Two thirds of Europe’s fish stocks are currently overfished. The situation is worst in the Mediterranean. There, an entire 82% of stocks are overfished above the level that has been scientifically determined to be sustainable. However, the situation is almost as alarming in all of Europe’s seas. This goes, in particular, for my native waters, the Baltic Sea.

Overfishing means, in practice, that there is overcapacity in the fishing fleet and that too many vessels are hunting for too few fish. In Europe, there is no definition of overcapacity. Since Commissioner Damanaki is here, I will therefore take the opportunity once again to ask for such a definition. A definition would mean that it would no longer be possible for anyone to say that overcapacity or overfishing does not exist. Therefore, we need a definition in order to be able to hold a clearer political debate.

Overfishing is not only an ecological disaster; it is also an economic and social disaster. In the last 10 years, European fish catches have diminished from 5.5 million tonnes to 4 million tonnes. At the same time, it is estimated that 130 000 jobs have been lost in the fishing industry.

The World Bank estimates that global overfishing costs the world around EUR 40 billion per year. That is equivalent to Finland’s state budget.

The poor state of fish stocks has also made it necessary to subsidise the fishing industry using public funds, which readily results in continued overfishing. At times of financial austerity, I think that taxpayers’ money could be put to considerably better use. We must therefore make fishing profitable again, like it was for thousands of years in Europe.

One of the main points of the report by myself and my predecessor, Carl Haglund, is to achieve a maximum sustainable yield by 2015. Maximum sustainable yield means not catching fish faster than the time it takes for the fish stocks to replenish themselves. It sounds rather logical and simple but, unfortunately, it is not a foregone conclusion.

Another key point is to obtain a ban on discards. Currently, 1.7 million tonnes of dead fish are thrown overboard every year. A policy is only as good as its implementation. We must therefore ensure that the decisions taken concerning the reform of the common fisheries policy are actually followed.

As things stand, many Member States are very lax when it comes to reporting the actual size of their fishing fleet, among other things. This, in turn, makes it difficult to estimate how large the overcapacity is. There are currently few sanctions that can be used against those who break the rules. I therefore propose an option to freeze the EU aid from the common European Maritime and Fisheries Fund for countries that do not comply with the legislation and rules that we have adopted.

These three things should form part of the core of the new fisheries policy that we are to decide on this year and that will affect the fisheries sector for the next 10 years. The Australians and Americans have shown that the right political measures are important. They were once in the same situation in which Europe now finds itself, but they succeeded in breaking out of the downward spiral.

This therefore sounds like the right approach for Europe to take, and it is something we can achieve if we take the right decisions during the forthcoming reform.

  Struan Stevenson, rapporteur. – Mr President, may I apologise to the House for my late appearance. I was with my Scottish colleagues, speaking to a visitors’ group from Scotland about the mackerel war and the fisheries debates.

Firstly, let me thank all of the shadow rapporteurs, and my other colleagues in the Committee on Fisheries, for their help and cooperation throughout my work on the CMO report. I believe that we have arrived at a good conclusion, as this is the first of three legislative reports which will comprehensively reform the common fisheries policy. I think there are many interesting signposts in this CMO package which point the way for the common fisheries policy.

One of the key issues which have dominated our discussion on CFP reform has, of course, been the need to end micro-management from Brussels, which has bedevilled the sector for decades, and replace micro-management with meaningful regionalisation. Under such a system, the Commission will set the framework for the CFP and devolve day-to-day management to the stakeholders themselves.

I therefore emphasise the need for an enhanced role for producer organisations (POs), which will be best placed to assist with the day-to-day organisation of effort limitation, quota management, by-catch avoidance and dealing with fish landed under the discards ban. Given this enhanced role, I have also said that the criteria for setting up a PO should be clearly defined as regards the minimum number of participants, and I have suggested where transnational POs and associations of POs can provide useful partnerships to ensure a level playing field in respect of common and binding rules.

The report also makes several suggestions on labelling, including the need for clear information for consumers on origin, method and data production. Also, the area where the fish was caught should be expressed in terms that are familiar to the consumer. I have also suggested that the date of landing should be mandatory, and the date of catch voluntary. In addition, an innovation which won general support in committee is the voluntary use of an EU eco-label.

The report also encourages Member States to make full use of modern technology, utilising funding from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund to combine information that is already available through electronic logbooks, VMS and CCTV to increase market intelligence and increase profitability for everyone in the sector.

On discards, we vetoed the idea of distributing fish free to charities, hospitals and schools, as this would undermine the market. We have placed all of the emphasis on by-catch avoidance, but suggested that fish landed under any discard ban should be used for pet food, fish meal, fish oil, or for bait. Mature commercial species landed under the discard ban should be sold in the normal way, with PO members receiving some small reimbursement to cover their costs for such landings, and the remainder going to a conservation fund. It is imperative, however, that reimbursements should not be set at a level that might encourage the targeting of juvenile fish.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos, rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, may I start by thanking my colleagues and rapporteurs Mr Stevenson, Mr Gallagher, Mr Haglund and Mr Torvalds, and all the members of the Committee on Fisheries, for their assistance in the drafting of this report. My thanks in particular to the shadow rapporteurs and my associate Ms Zacharaki, who worked on this matter. Fisheries are, without doubt, at a crucial turning point. The previous reform of the common fisheries policy did not manage to achieve the basic targets set, as the European Commission itself admits. However, we must put that down to experience as well.

At this very moment, we are being given the opportunity and the means to carry out an in-depth reform that will pave the way for sustainable European fisheries, both from an environmental point of view and from a socio-economic point of view. The European Union represents about 4.6% of global fisheries and aquaculture production, which makes it the world’s fourth biggest producer. Nevertheless, 60% of the fish consumed in the European Union are imported. According to information available, 75% of the Union’s fish stocks are overexploited and more than 60% of fish stocks in European waters are being fished beyond the maximum sustainable yield.

The European Union loses potential income in the order of EUR 1.8 billion per year as a result of its failure to manage its fisheries sustainably. At the same time, it lost 30% of its jobs between 2002 and 2007. We therefore need to make fisheries environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. These are the pillars underpinning the report being presented to you.

Particular emphasis is placed, chapter by chapter, on the maximum sustainable yield. Achieving production at maximum sustainable yield is an ambitious objective that will help to allow fish stocks to recover. The admittedly poor state of our stocks is such that we need to be ambitious, especially in this phase, when we have an historic opportunity to lay the foundations of European fisheries policy.

The report highlights the difficulties inherent in implementing the maximum sustainable yield principle, in particular, in the case of mixed fisheries or where scientific data to support it are inadequate. This should be a focal point of the Commission and of Ms Damanaki, whom I also thank for her assistance. I also thank her office for its assistance and advice during the drafting of this report. The Commission is called upon to increase financing for the Member States for secure and reliable data collection. I believe that the reliability and availability of their data should be one of the most important priorities of the reform.

My colleagues who have already spoken mentioned the measure of eliminating discards. This is a measure that concerns us, because it is without doubt unacceptable for us to throw food fit for consumption back into the sea. At this time, in this recession, we are all aware of the wastage of resources that this practice represents and how destructive it is for the environment and for the viability of stocks.

That is all I have to say, because my colleagues, whose reports are fully in keeping with my report, have covered what I wanted to say. Thank you once again and please support my report.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, let me first thank the four rapporteurs, Mr Gallagher, Mr Stevenson, Mr Torvalds and Mr Salavrakos, for their presentations and for their outstanding work. I would also like to greet Commissioner Damanaki and her commitment and ambition in advancing the reform of our fisheries policy.

It is a great honour for me to be here today to present the Council views on the very important topics that we plan to discuss. These include of course, as we said, the reform of the common fisheries policy. I look forward to working very closely with you in the codecision procedure as we advance a very important legislative agenda with a significant impact on EU citizens. Therefore, I would like to stress my commitment to making our joint work successful and rewarding.

Concerning the common fisheries policy reform, the Council launched its debate horizontally in July last year. That debate took into account the Commission communications on which Mr Haglund and Mr Salavrakos have prepared reports. Since then, the Council has focused on the common market organisation and the regulation on the common fisheries policy, reaching a general approach in June of this year. In addition, the Council agreed on conclusions for the external fisheries policy in March of this year.

The Council’s position on the common market organisation enlarges the role and responsibility of producer organisations towards promoting more sustainable fishing activities, taking on tasks related to fisheries management and on handling unwanted catches that fishermen will have to land after the implementation of the discard ban.

On public market interventions, the Council agrees with the Commission that these interventions should be scaled down. Storage aid should be the only remaining intervention and Member States are not yet in agreement on whether these should be completely phased out over time.

On consumer information, the Council agrees with the Commission that product labels should have to report on whether the fish has been defrosted before marketing, but the Council disagrees with the Commission’s proposal that the date of catch should be mandatory as well.

On the reform in general, the Council’s position can be summarised as follows: management of fish stocks needs to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015, where possible, and by 2020 at the latest. New multiannual plans should better reflect the interdependence of fish stocks and fisheries and apply the maximum sustainable yield policy to all stocks which are significant in the area of the multiannual plan. Discard reductions should be at the forefront of the fisheries reform, accompanied by a landing obligation which will be phased in according to a timetable.

I would like to welcome the European Parliament’s support for a more regionalised common fisheries policy with better involvement of stakeholders and reinforced advisory councils. The Council agrees with this pillar of the reform, and its general approach contains procedures for putting regionalisation into practice as well as reinforcing the role of advisory councils.

With regard to transferable fishing concessions, many Member States are cautious concerning their effectiveness in fighting over-capacity and are concerned about possible unintended consequences. The general approach therefore foresees the introduction of transferable fishing concessions on a voluntary basis, while improving the existing mechanism to report on over-capacity and to take measures for fleet capacity adjustment. The link between fleet capacity and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund will be further explored by ministers during their September meeting in two weeks’ time, preparing for a partial general approach at the October Council.

I do not need to stress that the EMFF’s role in the reform will now be the focus of our discussions, in particular, its importance for growth, boosting aquaculture, creating more jobs and helping to implement the new common fisheries policy. With the new Council conclusions on the external dimension, the Council has set a more detailed framework for bilateral fisheries agreements, based on sustainability, and has given policy directions for the Union’s work in regional and multilateral fisheries organisations.

Last but not least, as a testimony to the success we can achieve together, I would like to thank Mr Gallagher for his outstanding work on the trade measures file which is expected to be adopted by our two institutions by the end of this month. This is a far-reaching piece of legislation which will enable the European Union to adopt effective measures against third countries allowing non-sustainable fishing.

Of course, the most recent such case that comes to our minds is the situation of the north-east Atlantic mackerel stock. We all know that unfortunately, the latest attempt to find a solution acceptable to all did not succeed last week in London. I would like to recall the July Council’s desire to find a suitable compromise for this very unfortunate situation, but not at any price. Thanks to this legislation, we now have an additional instrument to use against such non-sustainable management practices.

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, since my time is limited, I would like to focus on certain issues. I hope that you will forgive me for not referring to all the issues that the rapporteurs have already mentioned.

I would like to thank everybody – Mr Gallagher, Mr Stevenson, Mr Torvalds and of course Mr Haglund, who is a former member of this House, and Mr Salavrakos for their work. I am pleased and I think that the Commission can be pleased because all the reports point in the same direction. This is a very important direction for us. It means more sustainable fishing inside and outside the EU. This is the main message of our proposal referring to the reform and I am happy to see this message in all the reports.

I would like to comment on some issues now, beginning with Mr Salavrakos’s report. I would like to welcome the call from this House to restore and maintain stocks above the maximum sustainable yield. This is a very important message for us all and I hope that Parliament will uphold this message until the end of the debate and the negotiations. We would like to have the maximum sustainable yield introduced in our final text. It will be very important to have this as part of our new fisheries policy.

I would also like to thank Mr Salavrakos because he has made a very good basis for the further discussion of our proposal for a discard ban. I know that this is a very difficult exercise. We have discussed this in this House on other occasions with many of you. The Commission would like to cooperate with the Council and I welcome the presence of the Council here. If we are going to find a step by step approach or an approach that is gradual for the timeline, we need a clear and binding solution for discard and this is the way we are going to negotiate and discuss and cooperate with everybody around this very important issue.

Let me now move onto Mr Torvalds’s and Mr Haglund’s report. I fully agree that long-term management plans should be the basis of our policy because uncertainty is our enemy. We have to tackle this problem through long-termism instead of going for micro-management and a short-termist approach.

But you know that there is a problem here. There is a deadlock between the Council and Parliament. The Commission is here to facilitate, but you must discuss this between you. I am very happy to have you both here and I would like to be completely open. We can do everything but we really need progress, and progress can only be achieved by compromise. If the Council stays in the same position and Parliament stays in the same position, there will be no progress.

Nevertheless, this deadlock underlines the situation and the fact that we cannot say that the discard ban is only going to be implemented if we have long-term management plans in place. This very deadlock provides the real answer to how the discard ban will then be taken hostage by this situation. So I would like to urge you to support removing the link between the discard ban and the long-term management plans in this report. We cannot proceed this way. The long-term management plans – and it is not our problem – will take many years to be a reality for all fish stocks. The discard ban is very urgent as Mr Salavrakos and others have already underlined.

And now for Mr Stevenson’s report. I am really satisfied that the report maintains the drive of our proposal. However, I would like to stress the issue of labelling once more and I would like to underline that I think that we are here to protect the interests of our citizens – not only of our fishermen but also of our consumers – and we have to keep the right balance between these approaches. That is why I think that the consumers have the right to have clear and very comprehensive information about the fish they buy. We have several ways of doing that, but I would like to focus mainly on two.

Firstly, in our opinion, the date of catch is absolutely essential, for consumers. It is absolutely essential for our fishermen, for the small-scale fisheries and also for the fishermen that are in the coastal areas. Why? Because the date of catch will be a great weapon in their hands.

So we are talking here a lot about small-scale fisheries. Can we ignore their interests? Because this is what is happening. If we are going to remove the date of catch, the fact that information is added in one way or another is not a matter of indifference. The date of catch is very important.

Let me give you another example. In France, for example, or in Spain, we have this French or Spanish law about the category of fishermen that return to port within 24 hours. A lot of them are not small-scale but they are coastal fisheries and these will use this date of catch to their advantage. I would like to urge you to go for this information for consumers. I would like also to call on the Council to reconsider this approach.

Secondly, I think that prepared and preserved products should show the fish name, origin and production method. I really do not see why the processed products have to miss that information out. Why? I think that the consumer has to know. He has to know and he has to make his own decisions.

So one last point about eco-labelling. I know that many of you have proposed an eco-labelling approach, so what I can promise is that by 1 January 2015, the Commission will make a report. We will come to you with our proposals and then we can decide together if we are going for an eco-labelling approach.

Lastly, on the trade instrument, I think we have to congratulate Mr Gallagher because he has done a lot of work and we have succeeded in having this instrument in place as soon as possible. Time matters here and I am really grateful that we have gone into this exercise so swiftly. I think that this is a very important proposal by the Commission, and I hope that Parliament and the Council can work together on this. Why? Because it can contribute a lot to creating a level playing field between our fishermen and the fishermen of other countries, non-EU Member States with whom we share the same stocks. We have discussed level playing fields a lot so we have to introduce this trade instrument and I hope that we can do it as soon as possible. I also think that this will reignite confidence in our policy, in the Commission services, in the way we treat our fishermen. It is really very important.

The Commission, of course, is disappointed because we have not reached an agreement with other coastal areas about mackerel stocks. I would just like to say that I am preparing to have everything in order if you vote for this instrument. I have to underline that there are many legal procedures that have to be taken account of.

  Philippe Boulland, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of Maurice Ponga, the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development on the report by Mr Gallagher.

It is important to note that the European Commission, when it wishes to impose sanctions on a country for unsustainable fishing practises, must take into account that country’s level of development. This is because, according to the principle of policy coherence with development goals, it is crucial, in my opinion, that the measures adopted for fisheries do not undermine the development plans and strategies implemented by the European Union in the countries concerned.

Mr Gallagher’s draft report takes up this important idea for our Committee on Development, specifying that the measures should not be unjustified or even discriminatory.

I therefore call on the European Commission, when it adopts such measures, to respect this principle of policy coherence with development objectives and to duly consider the level of development and the vulnerability of countries.

  Isabella Lövin, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. – Mr President, dear colleagues, we are approaching a real crunch time in the debate over the future common fisheries policy, and the question is: will it be a success, or will it continue to be a disaster? At the moment, I see two real, major threats that could destroy all the good work that has been done by the rapporteurs, Mr Haglund, Mr Salavrakos, Mr Stevenson and also Ms Rodust, and the extremely long work and analyses carried out by the Commission and the Court of Auditors.

The first of these threats is paragraph 58 of the Salavrakos report, which calls for fleet renewal. The EU got rid of subsidies for building new fishing vessels in the last reform in 2002, and still the fleet suffers from enormous over-capacity. It would be completely irresponsible to reintroduce this now, in the middle of the economic crisis, when we should have learnt our lesson. That lesson is that the best way to let the fishing industry become economically prosperous is to rebuild fish stocks to a level above maximum sustainable yield.

This leads me to the other threat to a successful reformed fisheries policy, namely Amendment 2 to the Salavrakos report, which seeks to delete the word ‘above’ from ‘above MSY’. That would be an extremely serious mistake. Study after study has shown that if we keep stocks above MSY level, the industry will enjoy greater stability and earn more money, and investments will be much safer. This is also what the pelagic RAC stated in the Committee on Fisheries. It would give us a better marine environment and is consistent with a precautionary approach.

Concerning the Stevenson report, we support the mandatory provision of information to consumers on the date of catch and the gear type that has been used. This should also apply for processed products.

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

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), Blue-card question. – (PT) Mr President, Ms Lövin mentioned the over-capacity of the European fleet in general and she mentioned it with a view to stating that there should be no further aid for fleet renewal. I should like to say to her that we are talking about very different things when we talk about the European fleet. For example, the average ages of the fleets of the various countries, the various Member States, are profoundly different: we have countries whose fleets have an average age of 20 years or more, and we have other countries with fleets that are far more modern.

I should like to ask her whether she believes all countries should be treated equally and, if so, whether that represents a death sentence for fishing activity in those countries whose fleets have a much higher average age than others.

  Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – I am actually convinced that, with just a few years of recovery of the fish stocks in Europe, all the European fleets will be in a much better economic situation. I think that fishermen, as well as all other economic entrepreneurs, have the obligation to see to it that their activity is economically viable. They should be able to invest in their own renewal of their own fishing vessels. It should not be up to European taxpayers to provide for that.

  João Ferreira, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (PT) Mr President, the common market organisation (CMO) for fisheries products is one of the pillars of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and the first regulation in the legislative package that will set out the future CFP, to be voted on here in Parliament. It is clear that the CMO’s main objectives still have not been realised, specifically ensuring market stability and guaranteeing producers a fair income. The income crisis affecting the fisheries sector, which has – let us not delude ourselves – consequences for the conservation status of stocks ... As I was saying, this income crisis has various causes, including the way in which the sector is currently marketed, the unbalanced distribution of value added along the sector’s value chain and the way in which first-sale prices are formulated. Moreover, fishing is, by its very nature, irregular. This irregularity implies a need for public funding from either national governments or the EU, for example, supporting fishers during biological rest periods. It also implies the creation of effective market intervention mechanisms that are duly funded from the EU budget from the outset.

The current situation means we need an ambitious reform of the CMO that reinforces its instruments; its mechanisms for public intervention in markets. This is – I repeat – also necessary in order to conserve stocks. Regrettably, the Commission and the rapporteur are heading in the opposite direction, by means of dismantling the already scant extant regulatory instruments, of more liberalisation and of their precious market orientation. In other words, faced with the disasters of neoliberalism, the fundamentalist believers in the invisible hand continue to suggest the same path.

This proposal ignores the reality of the sector in the various Member States. It ignores the very incipient level of producer organisation in a number of countries, particularly as regards small-scale coastal fishing sectors. It also fails to respond to the need to revalue the first-sale price of fish, so it does not contribute to reducing the pressure on stocks. In short, regrettably, this report does not respond to the sector’s problems and creates others. It has been written in line with the interests of the few and against the interests of the many.

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

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), Blue-card question. – Mr Ferreira, would you agree that the common fisheries policy has been a total ecological, environmental disaster, with particular damage to fishing stocks, and would you further agree that the only certain cure is the immediate repatriation of fishing grounds to the nation states, starting off with Spanish subsidised Spanish trawlers staying out of British territorial waters. Would you agree?

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), Blue-card answer. – (PT) Our answer is very clear and we have been expressing it in the numerous draft amendments we have been tabling to the various reports under discussion. We believe it is local management that best serves the interests of stocks and fishers. The local management that we advocate is the antithesis of the centralised management we have had for the last 20 or 30 years; centralised management that the Treaty of Lisbon has, unfortunately, consolidated by enshrining the management of living marine biological resources as an exclusive EU competence. We are now running into the negative consequences of this, first and foremost because of the constraints that the Commission says bind it as regards further decentralising the common fisheries policy and promoting the local management that we advocate.

  Nuno Teixeira, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, the future common fisheries policy (CFP) should focus on its environmental, economic and social aspects, in a cooperative and non-hierarchical way that favours sustainable development and is in line with the Europe 2020 strategy’s targets of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development, I should like to stress the specific nature of some regions, such as the outermost regions, whose economies are very dependent on the fisheries sector. In these regions, CFP reform should seek to ensure the survival and future prosperity of their small-scale coastal fishing fleets, thereby safeguarding and defending the jobs dependent on them. I agree with the Commission’s position on the need to adjust this policy and for specific measures, which should take into account the disparate realities of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in the various coastal regions. I advocate this policy emphasising regionalisation as a form of governance by increasing the participation of the various stakeholders so as to enable, in future, the most appropriate response to the requirements and sensitivities of each sea basin.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking all the rapporteurs for their reports, but may I highlight the excellent collaboration with Mr Gallagher, which has led to the adoption at first reading, with the agreement of all the institutions, of measures that will enable swift action to be taken to put an end to unsustainable situations, such as we are experiencing with Iceland and the distribution of mackerel stocks.

With regard to the Stevenson report on the common organisation of the market (CMO), I shall make particular reference to the chapter on consumer information, to which Commissioner Damanaki referred, in which I believe the compromises reached clarify and simplify the original proposal. Commissioner, I believe that proposal confused quantity of information with quality of information, since it would – as in the case of Article 42(2) – call for a whole series of data to be given, complicating and unnecessarily increasing the costs to the industry, without being of any relevance to consumers, who would also be incapable of assimilating so many details.

We have also tried to find a balance between the interests of the various segments of the fleet and industry. For example, the obligation to show the date of catch is in the interests of the smaller-scale fishing fleets but is very detrimental for the other fleets catching fresh fish, without affecting the quality of the catch. Replacing it with the date of landing, as included in the compromise reached, gives the consumer the same guarantees while allowing the date of catch to be included as part of the voluntary information, if so wished.

  Ole Christensen, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DA) Mr President, sustainability must be a key criterion for the EU, regardless of whether fishing takes place in the Pacific, in the Indian Ocean or in the Atlantic. For certain highly migratory fish stocks, however, sustainable management will require cooperation between the countries exploiting the resources. When some countries choose to increase their own quotas off their own backs, it is at the cost of the resources that we are all dependent on and benefit from. It is therefore important that the EU has general, effective and reasonable incentives to counter overfishing and to promote our shared objective of healthy fish stocks the world over. For the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, it was crucial to have measures that are effective, but at the same time practicable under international trade law. We now have that, and it is a victory for sustainability.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I have to ask the question, why do they not get it? Why is it that some members of the EPP, from the Italian, Spanish and French delegations, just do not get it?

We have been overfishing. The problem for the fishing industry is that there are now too few fish. We have to rebuild fish stocks. That is at the heart of the Commission’s proposals – that we need to achieve maximum sustainable yield (MSY), but not just MSY. We need to set levels above MSY. We need to rebuild those stocks to give industry a future.

Yet 70 EPP members have signed an amendment to delete that word ‘above’. They are basically saying ‘we do not care about rebuilding fish stocks’. I am sure that they are trying to be kind to the fishing industry by doing this – buying them a little short-term profit without having to take the measures necessary – but their kindness will kill the fishing industry. I urge them to think again.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to subscribe 100% to what my colleague Lövin has said. I would refer, basically, to the Gallagher report. The fact that the EU, on the one hand, and Iceland and the Faroes, on the other, have been waging a – mostly diplomatic – war over quotas for mackerel in the north-east Atlantic has had as a consequence that the fish is being severely overfished, for the EU and Norway maintain their historic quotas, while Iceland and the Faroes have declared large unilateral quotas. The total catches thus far exceed the scientific advice.

This being so, it means that if a country fails in its international obligations regarding fisheries management, the EU can threaten an import ban on any fishery product coming from that country that swims in the same ecosystem. This is a significant step down the path of ensuring that only sustainably caught fish enters international trade. However, its importance depends upon the EU market, which is currently huge, though there are alternatives, especially in emerging markets such as China, Brazil, etc. Nonetheless, it is a very positive outcome.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate all the rapporteurs and, in particular, I would like to thank and congratulate Struan Stevenson for the enormous amount of work that he put into preparing his report. It is worth noting that the rapporteur took part in very many meetings, not just with shadow rapporteurs and interested Members of the European Parliament, but also with a large number of fishermen, industry representatives and scientists, and I would like to offer my special thanks for that fact.

The report lays emphasis on the future of small-scale fishing, which plays a very important role in the economies of EU Member States. This consists, primarily, of family businesses, which are particularly sensitive to the functioning of, and changes in, the single market. Where individual fishermen compete with industrial fishing, the individual will always lose. I hope that this report will not only help to preserve small-scale fishing, but will also enable the fishing sector to be competitive while maintaining its varied structure.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, with fish stocks in serious decline in Europe’s rich fishing grounds, the CFP is a failure. Yet these reports are laced with the same old Eurospeak – regulation, restriction, prohibit.

Before the CFP, most European fishermen, unhampered by bureaucratic interference, had been fishing responsibly, looking after their own waters and therefore handing on viable fisheries down the generations. But the EU destroyed this culture of care and so now we have rules about total permissible catch and the wretched discard policy, which has decimated stocks.

If you do not like lessons from the past, then try the present. Norway and Iceland still record good catches and find many species spawning well, but then they ban discards and other destructive EU measures which, as noted in these reports, have reduced EU fishing fleets. The UK fishing fleet is barely half its former size and so much of the fish sold in the UK now comes from Iceland. What an indictment of the CFP.

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

  Chris Davies (ALDE), Blue-card question. – Mr Clark, you forget that British fish stocks were declining very well in the 1960s before we joined the EU. But my question is this. I am glad you are engaged in this debate. We want to bring about reform and we want to save our fish stocks, but, Mr Clark, your leader, Nigel Farage, has a seat on the Committee on Fisheries. I have never seen that seat occupied. We need votes to help us reform the CFP. Is the UK Independence Party going to support Britain by being in the seat and using its vote, or by running away?

(Cry of ‘Hear, hear!’ from the floor)

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD), Blue-card answer. – I cannot answer for my leader in this context. I will ask him, and I will give you the answer, if you will permit me, in the morning or the day after perhaps.

  Jean-Marie Le Pen (NI). – (FR) Mr President, this third reform of the common fisheries policy must not take place, once again, at the expense of fishermen. Not all fishermen are these plunderers of the sea, the only people responsible for the poor state of the stocks, as is suggested by environmental organisations and the European Commission, grouping together all fishing categories.

Of course we need to preserve fish stocks, but we also need to allow our fishermen to make a living from their work and preserve the economic fabric, dynamism and cultural identity of our coastal regions.

However, the main measures of the European executive once again aim to reduce the number of fishermen to achieve the mythical ‘maximum sustainable yield’. I would like to point out that the French fleet has decreased by more than 50% since 1980.

The Commission is proposing, in particular, the introduction of transferable individual quotas, which are a measure of the industrialisation and concentration of the sector, and even a complete ban on discards, which the experts describe as unrealistic. This draft reform probably suits the industrial fleet but, as it stands, it would be the scheduled death of what remains of local and small-scale fisheries.

  Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, first of all, I should like to say how pleased I am by the work everyone has carried out together; the rapporteur and all the Members of Parliament have helped to enrich this text on the basis of a fundamental objective we all share: the sustainability of fishing and fishing resources, and also the rights of citizens to consume a product – fish – of the highest quality and with the greatest guarantees, bearing in mind that there are conflicts of interests on this issue.

As I have barely one minute to speak, I shall say that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament defends and stands by an amendment we would like to be adopted, which defends the basic rights of citizens as consumers and those who buy the fish that our producer organisations have to process, market and sell, because we are not talking about just any product. We are talking about a product that is a food, and which we claim enhances the ‘healthy diet’ needed for both children and adults. We also want Europe to set an example in healthy eating, and we cannot conceal information from consumers on such a basic right as the right to a healthy, wholesome diet.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, these reports encompass some of the key issues involved in the ongoing CFP reform debate. On discards, we all agree that this scandalous waste of food must be ended, but we must accept that the CFP and its detailed rules are a significant cause of discards. The cod recovery plan and its catch composition rules are directly causing substantial amounts of wastage through discards.

On decentralisation, let us allow Europe’s fishing nations to decide, working together in logical sea basins, how best to conserve their stocks, because it is their future and they who will have the most incentive to make it work.

The CFP has failed Scotland’s fishing communities and to date, in spite of its absolute control over every movement that our fishermen make, it has been unable to help us resolve the mackerel dispute. I hope that by supporting the Gallagher report, the Commission will run out of excuses and that we will have some action and that we will have a resolution to that problem.

Finally, on aquaculture, the market organisation is very important to aquaculture, as is EU support for development and research – but not control or management.

  Anna Rosbach (ECR). – (DA) Mr President, our fisheries sector is losing jobs; biodiversity and the marine environment are under threat. Commissioner Damanaki’s proposal has pointed the way towards sustainable fisheries in Europe, but the EU’s fisheries ministers agreed on a reform that presents a frightening future for the sector, including the deferral of maximum sustainable yields (MSY) until 2020. Over the past 10 years, overfishing has resulted in the loss of 30% of the jobs in the sector, but the introduction of MSY from 2015 would give fish stocks some rest time to re-establish themselves, allowing us to restore a greater number of jobs from 2020.

Mr Salavrakos’ report sends a strong signal to the Council and the Commission that we will not accept short-sighted national interests again being given priority. We need the fleet capacity to be reduced to a sustainable level. This is the first time that the European Parliament has been colegislator on fisheries policy. Ladies and gentlemen, let us therefore take this responsibility seriously to secure the future of fisheries.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, in respect of the Gallagher report, I would hope that the House would support this report. I would also hope, Commissioner, that it would strengthen your hand in dealing with the Icelandic and Faroese situation. This has been going on for years now. For the sake of a sustainable fishery and for a sustainable fishing industry, we need to have this issue sorted out. I trust that support for the report from this House will help in that.

In relation to the common organisation of the market, I want to say a personal ‘thank you’ to Struan Stevenson. He took the time to visit Northern Ireland and I know that some of the issues that were raised there are reflected in his amended report.

I also want just to briefly touch on the issue of discards. We are in agreement that this is a practice that is completely terrible in relation to fishing. I agree with my Scottish colleague who says that much of the common fisheries policy has actually helped to increase the level of discards. I would encourage Members in the House next week to take the opportunity to come along to an initiative that I have organised with other parliamentary colleagues, to hear the way that the industry itself, right across Europe, is dealing with the practice of discards.

  Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, if I may, I shall use my speech in this joint debate on fisheries policy in order to make some demands.

Today, we are debating good reports that properly define Parliament’s efforts to achieve sustainable fishing by preserving fish stocks, and which try to establish a common organisation of the markets in which consumers are not only protected but also well informed. In addition, we are stressing the need to take action against those who authorise unsustainable fishing, and we are doing so by discussing, debating and reaching agreements.

Unfortunately, however, those efforts clash with the actions of those who sometimes confuse confidentiality with a lack of transparency, with protocol negotiations carried out behind Parliament’s back and, what is worse, behind the backs of those who should be benefiting from the very same agreement. Commissioner Damanaki, there is still time to rectify this situation. Please do so.

Our efforts also clash with those who are less concerned about blocking instruments that are fundamental to developing the sector as they are about not losing powers which even the Treaty does not bestow on them. Mr Mavroyiannis, we still have time. Stop blocking the management plans. It is important for the fishing industry and therefore for the citizens of Europe and for us.

Therefore, at a time of uncertainty with so many boats and so few fishing opportunities, with fierce competition from imported products and a considerable reduction in subsidies, we have an obligation to support this reform. We should do so bearing in mind the fishermen in Galicia, Andalusia, the Canary Islands and all the other regions of Europe. They expect something very simple from us: that we do not let them down.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, we have to face the evidence that all the available data are pointing to, which is the depletion of fish stocks. Some fish stocks have been seriously jeopardised, and therefore our objective must be to guarantee sustainable fishing if we wish to increase future fish production in our seas.

Today’s debate is an anticipation of some of the central issues of the common fisheries policy. The lack of reliable data means that it is not possible to reach a shared definition of over-capacity, and it is crucial to avoid the risk of adopting measures that could penalise fishermen, given the serious crisis that has hit the sector. Fishing needs to continue to be an important source of employment and sustenance for families.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, with some of the reports under discussion today being tabled and voted on, common fisheries policy (CFP) reform has now started to take shape. I would therefore congratulate their respective rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, and thank them for the work they have done.

We all know that the reform needs to be profound and that resource sustainability is our lowest common denominator. We also know that the situation in the sector must change, so the challenges it faces will be tough. It is incumbent on all of us to work to ensure the continuation of fishing and related activities, by promoting stock sustainability. It is incumbent on all of us to respond positively to the various interests in play, whilst accepting the complexities of dialogue and consensus building. We must not, as seems to be the fashion at the moment, self-interestedly and irresponsibly adopt the simplest solutions, seeking the approval of the masses by making ourselves hostages to populism.

Let us not forget that we are Members of this House and of the Committee on Fisheries, whilst you are Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. There can be no reform, whether superficial or the profound reform we want this to be, against the sector or without the sector. Other politicians have failed because they made this mistake. They lost, the sectors in which nothing changed lost and we, too, have been left with everything to lose. True reform will have to involve the stakeholders in order to win their cooperation, without which it will be doomed to failure. Today’s reports are testimony to the change and dialogue required, because change is being implemented. I hope we will continue down this path.

  Iliana Malinova Iotova (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, I regret the fact that Mr Le Pen left the Chamber because I would say to him that either he has not read the package of reform proposals, or he is being biased, having said that they work against the fishermen. On the contrary, this is one of the most eagerly awaited reforms of the Community policy – the fisheries and maritime affairs policy.

I would like to give special thanks to Commissioner Damanaki and all the rapporteurs for the huge amount of work done. The reform enables Parliament to influence the fisheries sector by developing new, adequate standards and rules for fishing in Europe. If our decisions are right, we will have the fishermen as allies, and sustainable fishing and the ecological balance largely depend on them.

I come from Bulgaria, a country on the Black Sea which has serious problems with protecting marine species and fishing. The fishermen are awaiting our decisions even now, hoping for a policy that will protect their livelihood and guarantee their pay and jobs, which is why we must not forget the social aspect too.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to draw the attention of the House to, and ask it to support, the Salavrakos report and the rapporteur’s amendment, Amendment 1, and paragraph 4 of the Haglund report. This text is a cross-party compromise and calls on the Commission to ‘assess the possibility of establishing a network of closed areas in which all fishing activities are prohibited for a certain period of time in order to increase fish productivity and conserve living aquatic resources and the marine ecosystem’. This is really necessary; as you know, the Council has taken a very rigid position on the existing proposals.

We have to put productive things on the table. This is a proposal which can help fishermen and fisheries. Finally, with regard to the Stevenson report, I would like to support colleagues that have asked for labelling indicating where and how the fish was caught and which systems were used.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, in today’s debate, we are discussing the first report from the package of amendments to the common fisheries policy. This policy should ensure sustainable development of the marine environment and fish stocks and sustainable growth for fishermen, related industry sectors and coastal communities. This, at least, is how it appears in theory. In practice, however, and this is something that the scientists, politicians and, above all, the fishermen know full well, the policy currently in force has many drawbacks. Fortunately, work to reform the old fisheries policy is picking up speed.

I would like to say a few words about Mr Stevenson’s report. This is an excellent report. The new provisions strengthen the role of producer organisations and this is a very good solution. The resolution provides for the creation of production and sales plans, which gives producers an opportunity to become real players in managing production and trade. I would like to offer my thanks for your work and I look forward to continued cooperation.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, we are reaching the decisive moments in which we will give shape to Europe’s new fisheries policy and we must not fail. Bold and courageous measures are required as never before by the urgent need to rebalance our fisheries resources in a sustainable manner, but also to revitalise our coastal fishing communities and boost their socio-economic level whilst modernising the sector and supplying high-quality foodstuffs. We therefore need to make choices and prioritise objectives. I have proposed protection for my region’s weaknesses. I have also suggested that the exploitation of its resources take into account the scientific data, prioritise the needs of our coastal communities and restrict outside vessels to a maximum distance of 100 nautical miles or to existing fisheries there. I have proposed safeguarding the fishing capacity of our major fishing communities and rejected proposals for transferable quotas. I have proposed that our communities be more involved in managing their fishing affairs, through the creation of a consultative regional council more suited to the outermost regions, and I hope this will enable us to have a better future.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Torvalds has said that the common fisheries policy (CFP) as it currently stands is one of the EU’s greatest failures to date. I think he is right. He has also said that it is an economic, social and environmental catastrophe for our fisheries.

The fishing industry is not just a means of producing or catching food. It is the oldest trade in the world and, of course, we want to preserve it for the future. Therefore, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs. I believe that we have taken an important step forwards today and I know how committed Ms Damanaki is in this area.

For example, we need aquaculture as a response to overfishing. I am very interested in an integrated maritime policy which is all about maritime environmental planning. There are some interesting concepts in this area involving, for example, integrating aquaculture into offshore wind farms. This may be something for the future, but we must ensure that we can expand this sector in the most effective way possible.

Finally, I would like to tell you about a small success story from Germany. The North Sea and Baltic fisheries policy has resulted in stocks of cod, herring and plaice gradually recovering. I hope that in future, all the fish stocks in Europe will also recover.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, as we said a few days ago during a meeting of the representatives of Galicia’s fishers, it is important that seafood include compulsory information for consumers. We need strict certification for fisheries products, particularly imported ones, so that they meet the same requirements as we impose on European producers.

Thank you for accepting our proposals, Mr Stevenson, such as including extensive aquaculture, including the European mussel, which is the livelihood of many people living in my country, and highlighting protected designations of origin as a guarantee of seafood quality. However, there are also downsides to this report: Article 42(2) deprives consumers of fish and shellfish preserves and preparations of the right to see on the label the commercial name of the species, how it was produced, and where it was caught and raised. This means anonymous processed products from third countries will enjoy ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, the fisheries policy should be reformed, because it is too greatly and too tightly controlled from Brussels. One of the things that is important is sustainable innovation in fisheries.

Unfortunately, sustainable innovation in fisheries is not always possible. I am referring specifically to the fishing technique called pulse trawling. In this method of fishing, the fish are startled from the seabed with electric shocks of a few volts. The advantage here is that the seabed is not damaged and the fuel consumption of ships is reduced by 40%. There is much less by catch and the yield is much higher. So, perfect!

Unfortunately, every form of electrofishing is currently prohibited and thereby also pulse trawling. There is a temporary exemption, but I would urge the Commissioner to provide plenty of scope in the new fisheries policy for this new, sustainable and innovative fishing technique.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). – (NL) Mr President, there is no doubt that policy must be enforceable. In his overarching report, Mr Salavrakos has rightly pointed to the fact that the discard ban with the landing requirement for mixed fisheries is very problematic. In the forthcoming period, there will be a lot of hard work done on compromises for the basic regulation. Let us therefore indeed ensure that no unenforceable rules find their way into the regulation. It would be wrong to arrive at a stalemate in the mixed fisheries sector with an unenforceable discard ban. Let us, therefore, see which objectives for mixed fisheries are feasible and, at the same time, ambitious.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I shall be brief as I have almost exhausted my time limits. I would like to thank again all the rapporteurs and all the speakers because the discussion was very interesting and of substance. This is very helpful and gives us a very positive sign for the future.

I think that this is a positive moment in the cooperation between the Commission and Parliament. This is the way I would like to see it and I hope that you are going to vote tomorrow for a good reform, a good radical and conclusive reform. This is what we really want.

I do not want to comment on your opinions, but, because I think it is fair, just to comment on the spirit that I have witnessed in some interventions. This is not a power game of the Commission against Parliament or anybody else here. This is not a power game. We need your cooperation. I am here to cooperate with you in the reform. So, please, it is unfair to say, for example, referring to the Gallagher report – I already congratulated Mr Gallagher on his excellent job and also the rapporteurs and the shadow rapporteurs – that this will be the end of the Commission doing nothing and so on. After all, this is a report on our proposal. The Commission services have worked a lot in some months to reach this proposal for this instrument, so it is unfair to say that the Commission failed to answer this question and that Parliament will now have to respond. Everybody would like to cooperate here. At least, I would like to cooperate with all of you, and I very much welcome your ideas and your proposals.

I understand all about the theoretical ideas, that the Commission and European Union are against fisheries and against fishermen, that we are trying to implement neoliberal ideas, etc., but here are some concrete questions and I think that all Members have to give concrete answers.

Do we want to have the date of the catch? Do we want to have it on the fish products? Yes or no? I would like clear answers on this because otherwise, when I then go to discuss this with small-scale fisheries and small-scale fishermen everywhere, I will have to say that the Commission tried to protect their interests but the European Parliament declined to do so. So, after all, this House also has some responsibility.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank all the speakers for their very fruitful interventions, to which I have listened very attentively. I have taken careful note of the key points that were raised. Let me once again assure you that the reform of the common fisheries policy is a top priority for the Council as well as the European Parliament and the Commission.

The reports by the European Parliament that we have in front of us show that the Council and Parliament can go a long way together on major issues. It is hoped that this will also be the case for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. The Presidency therefore looks forward to continuing constructive and fruitful dialogue between the Council and the European Parliament with a view to finding agreement on the best way forward.

I should like to make a final point on labelling and, in particular, on the catch date being made mandatory in fish product information. I hope you will bear with me for not being an expert on this – and, of course, I do not like to contradict my dear Commissioner Damanaki – but I must explain the rationale behind the Council’s position. The Council holds that the catch date is difficult to establish, and trace, on fishing trips lasting several days or weeks. On such trips, the fish is often immediately frozen on board and, therefore, kept in perfect condition.

Mandatory information exists already concerning package date and best-before date, and this information should be expanded to include qualitative information on whether the product was defrosted before selling. The catch or landing date could be part of the voluntary information whereby the producer or merchant seeks to distinguish one product from another.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher, rapporteur. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank my colleagues for their very kind and complimentary words in relation to my report. That of course includes the Commissioner and the President-in-Office.

I fully agree with the President-in-Office when he says that there should not be a deal at any price. In other words, you could say that no deal is better than a bad deal. But I believe – and I hope – that the report will be carried here tomorrow. I believe that will strengthen the Commissioner’s hand when she goes to negotiate again in October.

We of course wish you well, Commissioner. We will survive, the Commissioners will survive and the Presidency will survive, but the big losers in all of this will be the stakeholders – not just the stakeholders of the European Union, but of Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. They have the most to lose. So we must ensure that we can arrive at an agreement in October.

But I would like to make one final appeal, through this House, to all sides to get together and resolve this long-running dispute. A realistic solution is in the interests of all sides, but particularly the stakeholders, the fishing sector in the Member States.

I am hopeful that good sense will prevail and I believe that perhaps this is the time that we should, in advance of the October meeting, ask the representatives of the fishing organisations in the coastal states to come together and perhaps give their views and map a way forward.

I see that the chair of the Fisheries Committee is here as well as many of the shadows who are involved in this. I want to thank all of them for the role they played in the trialogue, together with the Commissioner’s officials and with the Presidency. I must say that, while I can be a critic at times of some of the institutions, I was more than impressed with the pragmatic attitude that they adopted at that meeting.

Commissioner, we have strengthened your hand. It will now be a matter for you to implement, if necessary, but I hope that it will not be necessary and that there will be a positive conclusion in October.

  Struan Stevenson, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers in this debate for their kind words and can I also thank my assistant, Catherine Stack, for all the hard work she had done on this report. First of all, let me address one of the issues that the Commissioner brought up on multiannual plans, and I really want to address this to the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Mavroyiannis, and say how much I support what the Commissioner said: without multiannual plans, President-in-Office, we have no effective CFP reform.

You cannot say to our fishermen that you can have the confidence of stability in the sector for the months and years ahead unless we get multiannual plans in place. Three of our reports, including one from my colleague, Pat the Cope Gallagher, have been blocked for over three years in this deadlock. This is no use. We really have to make some progress on this and I appeal to the Council to try to make a breakthrough on multiannual plans.

Mr Mavroyiannis, I support the position that you have taken this evening on things like TFCs being voluntary, on boosting aquaculture, on the need for setting a deadline for MSY, on the discards ban and I also thoroughly agree with the Council position.

I want to say this to Ms Damanaki on labelling. When I was in Galicia, the fishermen said to me that if coastal fishermen go out for several days and keep their catch on liquid ice, then when they land their catch, it is perfectly fresh and in great condition. Inshore fishermen may go out and come back in 24 hours but they have their catch lying in the sun for all of that time. The consumer, however, would be left with the impression from the mandatory date of catch that the poorer quality fish was actually better. I think that is unfair; it is an unfair advantage. Therefore, a voluntary label for date of catch and a mandatory label for date of landing are essential.

  Nils Torvalds, rapporteur. – Mr President, I had actually prepared a different speech but the discussion was so interesting that I scrapped it.

Commissioner Damanaki started her speech by asking for forgiveness. I think the priestly phrase goes, ‘ego te absolvo’: I grant her forgiveness. Then we have Minister Mavroyiannis. I am not going to forgive him because his stance on catch date actually stinks. It stinks of slightly old fish and I do not like it.

There is a Swedish saying that we skirt around a question like a cat moving around hot porridge. We are skirting around the question of technical improvements.

I have the feeling that Mr Ferreira has not read carefully the first part of Karl Marx’s ‘Das Kapital’ in which he describes the needle factory and needle manufacturing. The progress we have made in fishing is almost equivalent to what Karl Marx described 200 years ago. If Mr Ferreira’s point is that we should get on a level with all the fishing fleets in Europe before we can take any real measures, then that is a race to the bottom – the bottom of the sea that is. I think it is just illogical. It is a way of escaping the real question.

So dear friends, we have been sitting here for a while, the discussion has been very interesting and it is set to go on for some time.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos, rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, the other rapporteurs have already covered most of what I wanted to say in their presentations. What I want to point out is that I had certain principles in mind when I drafted this report: gentle adaptation of the legislative measure, feasibility and controllability of the measure, acceptability of the measure and permanence of the measure, because frequent changes are not constructive.

I thank all my colleagues who helped me draft this report. However, I have not thanked the fishermen who will accept the outcome of this arrangement. I therefore wish to give the fishermen of Europe a polite reminder that Jesus Christ chose them as his disciples and, revealing the fishermen as most wise, gave them the power to be fishers of men. I wish to convey to them that we are looking to the future of fisheries, that we are aware of the history of fishing, and that we believe that fisheries will subsist well past 2020.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow (Wednesday, 12 September 2012).

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) A properly functioning fisheries policy that markedly improves the competitiveness of the fisheries sector can have a positive impact on the entire European Union economy. Establishing maximum sustainable yield (MSY) thresholds will allow rational use of fish stocks and the creation of a stable, long-term strategy for this sector. The introduction of protection measures concerning such issues as the discards ban or the landing of all fish in port will have a positive impact on the ecosystem of fishing areas and the survival of endangered species of fish.

The common fisheries policy must also contain provisions to ensure the elimination of threats such as piracy or poaching. Full integration of the CFP with other policies, such as environmental policy or cohesion policy, will make it possible to increase economic prosperity throughout the European Union, particularly in regions where the economy is based, in large part, on this industrial sector.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Proposed reform of common fisheries policy will not ensure sustainability nor lead to urgently needed economic reform. The lack of a bold revolution, necessary for schismatic reversal of fishing policy, confirms the EU is incapable of providing a fit-for-purpose solution to overfishing. A study by the New Economics Foundation shows many fish stocks could be rebuilt within five years through real time bans. Restored stocks would generate GBP 14.62 billion annual revenue, treble the value of fish landed at sustainable levels today. The only way to effectively manage dramatic policy change is to renationalise fishing rights. There are 500 registered boats in Welsh waters, yet 90% of catch is not landed in Wales. A large proportion of the offshore fleet is made up of vessels registered in Wales but owned by Spanish companies and some Dutch operators, who contribute nothing to the local economy. Most landings by the local fleet are also consigned to ports outside the region. While 75% of the Welsh coastline has protected status, Wales cannot promote sustainability nor would gain in doing so. Only renationalising waters would incentivise the stewardship of seas by guaranteeing future sustainable, profitable local maritime industries and fair international trade.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that the Commission’s proposal also to resort to other than just trade measures must be given full support. However, at the same time, I believe that a clearer approach is also required, with much tougher and more effective measures. The trade measures to be applied should not be limited to the import of ‘stocks of common interest’ and ‘associated species’ only, but should also be applicable to all imports of fish and fishery products of all species originating from countries allowing non-sustainable fishing.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Forecasts for fish stocks in Europe are frightening; they are expected to be exhausted in the coming decades. Policy on catches is still insufficiently coordinated. As a result, many species are already on the verge of extinction, including the most popular fish, such as salmon or tuna. For this reason, it is vital to embark on the necessary steps without delay, in order to prevent an ecological disaster and to prevent humanity from losing a variety of resources.

Therefore, it is essential immediately to prepare long-term plans to regulate fishing grounds, to provide additional funding for research and for stocking reservoirs, and to introduce strict controls ensuring compliance with bans on fishing in protected areas. However, when creating legislation, the variety and specific characteristics of the different European seas should be taken into account. In addition, we must not forget about the fishermen and producers that will be deprived of a living as a result of new legislation. The new budget should provide compensation for those who will bear the economic and social consequences of the reforms.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report takes the right approach by strengthening producer organisations, which are granted new powers to manage and market production. The text also introduces new provisions to ensure that consumers have more information about fresh products, such as the date of landing, the term ‘defrosted’ and the catch area. To go even further, the Commission should present a European eco-label to reward sustainable fishing practices.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I congratulate our fellow Member for the document that has been presented, which provides an excellent summary of the current challenges facing the fisheries sector. Furthermore, I would like to thank him for supporting the inclusion in this report of the provisions referring to the need for a new Regional Fisheries Management Organisation for the Black Sea. In actual fact, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) is not an adequate framework for managing the Black Sea, and the European Commission needs to put into practice its earlier commitment to set up a Black Sea Advisory Council. Moreover, we need to step up the dialogue with the countries bordering the Black Sea, particularly with regard to the exploitation and conservation of fish stocks.

I am going to use this subject to touch on another point, which is the presence of a legislative vacuum regarding minimum landing sizes and minimum mesh sizes for nets for turbot. This year, Turkey blocked a decision on this matter from being adopted in the GFCM, providing an example to corroborate what has been stated so far.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Unfortunately, there are still many areas where the position of consumers in the single market needs to be improved. I have long held the view that one of these areas is greater consumer awareness, or the provision of factually accurate and non-misleading information, on the basis of which the consumer can make a choice. I therefore regard the correct labelling of products – especially food – as one of the most important consumer rights for all of us. One of the aims of this regulation is the labelling of fishery products. I agree with the rapporteur that consumers have the right to better and more comprehensible information on the fishery products they buy, in order to make an informed choice. I therefore do not understand why consumers are denied this information in the report – for example, through the proposal to remove data on the catch, which is information sought after and requested by consumers. Let us not deny consumers their right to a free choice based on true and full information.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We are preparing to vote on a number of texts that will define the future of European fishing. These texts affect hundreds of thousands of jobs, our food autonomy, the preservation of fish resources and the durability of an economic sector. Despite the fact that these major issues are evidently of general interest, the Commission has given its draft reform a very liberal slant. Parliament’s work has, of course, toned down these proposals. It is just a first step, however. Future work must go beyond declarations of intent. From now on, we have to build real tools to achieve an economic, social and environmental balance for this activity, in accordance with the EU’s 2020 strategy. It is just as essential to preserve jobs as it is to preserve resources. We urgently need to establish homogeneous controls throughout the Union. Similarly, we can no longer use different methods to collect scientific data. The renewal of the fleet is essential for the emergence of a future fishing sector that is more selective, safer, cleaner, and more efficient and thus more profitable. Otherwise, we will be left with one question: is the fisheries policy an exception to the 2020 strategy?

(The sitting was suspended at 20.30 and resumed at 21.00)

IN THE CHAIR: OTHMAR KARAS
Vice-President