Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 12 September 2012 - Strasbourg

8. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Antonyia Parvanova, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio report (A7-0244/2012)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, with freedom of movement and naturally also the development of technology, crime has become increasingly cross-border in nature. There are no longer any borders for criminals, so of course there should not be any borders for our police, prosecuting authorities and the protection of our citizens, either. If you become the victim of a crime, then naturally you should have a range of fundamental rights, regardless of where in Europe you happen to be. As a victim you must always have the right to information, interpretation, legal assistance and, not least, protection from criminals. As from today, the EU’s citizens have these rights. However, this is only one step along the way to a safer society for our citizens, and therefore we will be continuing the fight for even stronger police cooperation.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, victims of crimes in the European Union all too often do not report them because they are afraid to or they lack confidence in the authorities.

The report that has been adopted today aims to strengthen the rights of crime victims and provide them with the same level of protection, assistance and access to justice anywhere in the EU. It pays particular attention to those victims who are most at risk of suffering further harm or intimidation during criminal proceedings.

It is particularly important to grant the status of victim not only to persons harmed by an offence, but also to family members and persons who die following an offence.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very much in favour of this report, not least because when I was a regional councillor in Piedmont a few years ago I was personally involved in drafting a regional law providing for a number of benefits, recognitions and services for victims of crime.

In my view, the European Union and the Member States are right to recognise victims of crime as people to be protected and helped through their immediate psychological recovery process, in particular, and also through any criminal proceedings, until their lives are fully back to normal.

All victims should have the same rights, be treated with respect and dignity, safe from a repetition of the crime, and have access to support services, justice and compensation. Special attention is required in cases involving children, victims of sexual abuse, and particularly heinous crimes.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Mr President, I am particularly happy that we have adopted the Directive on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and I very much support the EPP rapporteur, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio.

From now on, women suffering domestic violence, children trapped in trafficking, innocent victims of terrorism and victims of all crimes will be able to have the same rights, regardless of the Member State where the crime has been committed and their nationality. We have set up clear common standards to ensure that each victim is treated with respect, dignity and without discrimination across the European Union. I welcome in particular the attention given to children and to people with special needs and that there will be an individual assessment of their vulnerability so as not to create first or second-class victims.

In the Stockholm Programme we promised to have a Europe that is a community of rights for all citizens. This is a significant step in that direction and I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues to make it a reality.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, the free movement of people is a fundamental right, which is safeguarded for all citizens of the European Union. The enjoyment of rights and freedoms means that ordinary people can also travel in the EU, seeking work, education or a better standard of living.

Free movement is one of the EU’s greatest achievements and its basic purpose is to offer equal opportunities and equal treatment to all EU citizens. Equality also means that all EU citizens are entitled to the same rights, support and protection if they become victims of crime in the European Union. This is not just about establishing common minimum standards, but also about the same level of protection for victims of crime in the EU. It is also about boosting the confidence that EU citizens have in national judicial systems. Overall, the directive will encourage greater confidence in judicial systems in all Member States. That is why I am happy to support the Commission’s proposal for minimum standards on the rights and protection of victims of crime, and support for them.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, in the current political situation, many people have a deep scepticism about the ability of the European Union to resolve problems. The directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime is proof of the fact that opinions of this kind do not always reflect reality. On the contrary, it shows how much problem-solving ability we have. Firstly, this group of people is being given the same access to the law and the same level of support throughout the entire European Union. This represents a major step forward for Europe and, most importantly, for those affected. It provides important support for the victims of crime. These are generally people who have got into a difficult situation through no fault of their own. By providing professional help which does not stop at national boundaries we are sending out an important signal to these people that they are not being abandoned by society. Overall, this is a very good day for Europe.

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Mr President, being the victim of a crime can be a very horrendous experience, but for many reporting a crime and dealing with the authorities after the experience can be equally, and often more, traumatic. This is magnified even further if the crime happens abroad.

So I very much welcome this directive, which will put in place minimum standards and protect the rights of victims of crime across the EU. Victims will be entitled to linguistic assistance and, importantly, access to easily accessible and confidential support services free of charge. The particular circumstances need to be taken into consideration. Their gender, race or sexual orientation need to be considered too.

The directive will help victims of crime feel safer, not just in their own country but throughout the EU. Importantly, this directive will help citizens of the EU gain trust in policing systems and judicial systems across the European Union.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, this report will ensure that citizens who become victims of crime when travelling in another EU country are given the help there that is needed. It gives victims of crime access to information as well as practical and emotional support. In the past, foreign victims have faced obstacles in obtaining fair compensation or they have been left without proper help and protection.

These minimum standards will make it easier for victims to receive help and, more importantly, access to justice. Basic procedural minimums are a more effective way of securing victims’ rights than a set of rigid regulations. This is a well-balanced approach to dealing with a problem which affects so many people in all Member States.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I fully support establishing minimum EU standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. An example would be the right to receive a copy of your police report at a police station in your native language. The definition of a victim will also be broadened to encompass the family of a person who is murdered or who dies in a terrorist attack.

In the event of a court case, the directive also encourages Member States to allow families for the first time to speak in court, even if they are not a witness, if their statement does not interfere directly with the proceedings.

I am particularly drawn to the directive’s proposal for a children’s rights package. This will establish a set of minimum standards for child victims, an example of which is the right to be interviewed by a video link and not in the court room. The recent terrible unsolved French Alps murders, leaving two orphaned British children, provide an example of potential beneficiaries of these measures.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I believe that victims should be able to benefit from minimum levels of rights without discrimination across the EU. The Stockholm Programme states that a more integrated and coordinated approach to victims is needed. This directive is part of a package of measures which will help improve legislation in this area, ensuring that victims of crime have effective rights in practice.

I am particularly pleased to have had the opportunity to support the children’s rights package initiated by my colleague Timothy Kirkhope. There are lots of very important rights for victims enshrined in this directive. But I feel rather disappointed, particularly having listened this morning to many people here extolling the virtues of Europe, that we are in the position where we have to impose pan-European direction on this.

Surely, as Member States, we are in a position where these basic rights will be afforded our citizens without that sort of compulsion.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour of this proposal because it will strengthen and give more substance to the rights of the victims in the European Union and will improve their protection throughout the Union. We have finally set minimum standards for handling the victims of crimes, irrespective of their nationality or the place where the crime was perpetrated.

This directive provides for the first time a unified definition of a victim to be used in all EU countries. This definition was broadened to include people such as the victims’ close family. This directive will increase the confidence of EU citizens in the area of justice and they will feel they are equally protected in all Member States.

I call on the Member States to develop greater cooperation and coordination to protect and provide support for the victims of crime.

  James Nicholson (ECR). - Mr President, can I very briefly say that I welcome the adoption of this directive on the rights of victims. I believe this a very important piece of work and I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their work. As you may be aware, where I come from in Northern Ireland, we suffered decades of violence from terrorists and it has had a very deep effect on the families of victims.

We all hope that thankfully that is well now behind us, but it should never be forgotten, and nor should the impact of what occurred and its effect on many people. I am pleased therefore too that this report specifically refers to the victims of terrorism and crucially recognises that their families are victims and as such are entitled to rights and support.

I note that national governments have three years to transpose this directive in national law and I would urge the UK to do this as swiftly as possible, particularly since – in my opinion – Europe has for once understood the definition of a victim an awful lot better than my own people in Northern Ireland have done.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, generally speaking, the role and needs of victims in criminal proceedings are not yet taken into account sufficiently in the legal systems of the Member States. The current situation shows that in many cases victims are not treated with respect and dignity, they are not sufficiently protected or supported, and do not have effective access to justice, compensation and redress for the harm suffered.

It is unacceptable for the level of support granted to a victim to vary depending on the Member State in which that person suffered the harm. Mutual recognition can work effectively only in a climate of trust, in which the judicial authorities, as well as all parties involved in the criminal proceedings can trust the appropriateness of rules in each Member State and be certain they are applied correctly. This is why I support this report and I firmly believe that, once this Directive is adopted, the situation of victims will greatly improve throughout the European Union, and that victims of crime will benefit from the same rights and basic services in all Member States.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, a single thief acting alone is an outlaw but a gang of thieves who manage to control the institutions of the state find that they can compel the law to their service. A counterfeiter is sent to prison; a central banker who debauches the currency is rewarded with a knighthood. A blackmailer who extorts is convicted; a taxman who does the same thing is supported by the taxpayers whom he is fleecing. A kidnapper who holds us to ransom expects a long prison sentence; a government minister who holds us in oppression expects to retire with a healthy pension.

The story of democracy, the story of human progress, is holding to account those who govern us and preventing that systemic looting, but now at European level our looters have escaped the bounds of public opinion and so, particularly in the peripheral states, we see generational poverty being inflicted without any recourse from the victims. On the 20th anniversary of my own country’s escape from the ERM let me assure the peoples of European that there is an alternative, there is a way out: running your own affairs in your own interest and growing your own way back to growth.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, I think the issue of the rights of victims of crime is one that probably united most of the House. We can all feel sympathy for the victims of crime, particularly when the measures that are being proposed seek to afford victims in a Member State the rights of the citizens of that Member State. I think it is important that we look at these issues, but actually I also think there should be a word of caution.

Of course it is all too easy to harmonise when it comes to something that we all agree on. It is all too easy to say that it is harmonised because we all care about victims of crime. We all care about children, particularly those children who are the victims of crime, but at the same time we have to be careful that this is not the beginning of the slippery slope to more and more harmonisation of rights. At the beginning we all believe and support these moves, but actually as we go down that slippery slope, at what point does it become an imposition on the rights of Member States?

Pat the Cope Gallagher report (A7-0146/2012)

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the four reports that have been adopted today clearly demonstrate Parliament’s desire to make a decisive contribution to supporting the fisheries sector, which is currently beset by major difficulties.

I voted in favour because I feel there is a vital need for coordinated action, just as I also believe that an approach involving regionalisation is absolutely essential in order to tailor this action to the needs of individual areas. We need to trim down the industry, expand market opportunities, enable fleets to modernise and ensure that there is real modernisation and growth in the sector, in which environmental sustainability must go hand in hand with economic profitability.

We await the framework regulation and finally the implementing dossier on the funding for the further acceleration that we think is needed.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I give my full support for measures against countries that fish unsustainably and threaten marine resources. This is in keeping with my party’s environmental policy to encourage sustainable food production and enhance the resilience of the whole food chain, namely the fish industry, in so doing.

The political impetus behind these proposals can be attributed in part to the latest international disputes over fisheries such as the unsustainable fishing of mackerel stocks. This proposal also sees ‘associated stocks’ being redefined for the first time as a new umbrella term to encompass any fish belonging to the same ecosystem that prey upon that stock or that are preyed upon by the common stock in question.

With regard to the imposing of these restrictions or actions, I also agree strongly with the obligation to consider and evaluate the environmental, trade, economic and social effects of the measures in order to ensure that they are reasonable, just and proportionate and that they are fully compatible with the EU’s WTO international trade obligations.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, at a time when we are reforming the common fisheries policy and requiring our own fishermen to ensure that their activities are sustainable, it is fair to ensure where possible a level playing field for fisheries imports.

I supported this proposal enthusiastically because it enables the European Union to take action against those countries that fish unsustainably. I very much support measures in the text whereby we will be able to impose quantitative restrictions on imports of fish into the Union from third countries.

But I want to make a particular point. One of the reasons why I was so enthusiastic to support this is that it is time that we called on the Commission to take note of Parliament’s will. This was a strong vote in favour of the report. They must take note of Parliament’s will on this issue and they must make sure that they find a way of making sure that we are compatible with our international obligations, not finding lots of reasons to tell us why we will not be. The rapporteur and the work he has done on this issue deserve that kind of respect.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour and strongly support this report. We need to ensure cooperation between EU states in order to establish truly sustainable fishing practices which conserve fish stocks and ensure their optimal use. We need to be able to impose sanctions on non-EU states which are responsible for measures and practices that lead to over-exploitation of stocks or which do not cooperate in good faith by taking agreed management measures.

We, as a Parliament – and this has been repeatedly said – need to send a strong political message to the Commission. That message is that we will no longer accept or do business with countries which continue to allow unsustainable fisheries. Otherwise only our fishermen will lose out. All imports of fish and fishery products of all species originating from countries allowing non-sustainable fishing practices should be banned and banned immediately.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, at first glance, it does, of course, seem very logical and sensible only to remove those fish from the world’s oceans which have been replaced every year. However, we know that people are not always sensible, in particular in cases where they can delegate or hand over responsibility. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to come to an agreement on catch quotas and on protecting fish stocks all over the world.

In order for this to function effectively, we also need to deal with those countries which, for whatever reason, are not prepared to comply with the requirements and the limits. Therefore, I am hugely grateful to the rapporteur for this report and have, of course, voted in favour of it. It is now up to the Commission to put in place suitable measures to allow us to negotiate with these countries and to make it clear to them that sustainable fishing is extremely important. It is not only about us or about the fish, but about the generations that follow us.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because the European Union’s efforts to achieve sustainable fishing activities are not sufficient as long as they are isolated. The EU must make third countries follow its example and carry out sustainable fishing activities. The overexploitation of fish stocks, such as mackerel, may have global impact. This impact is felt beyond the borders of the State exploiting the fish stocks and has long-term consequences on marine biodiversity.

Imposing trade barriers on countries carrying out non-sustainable exploitation practices could be the EU’s answer in order to ensure a responsible behaviour on their part. The adoption of such measures should be preceded by the evaluation of their environmental, trade, economic and social effects.

Struan Stevenson report (A7-0217/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted with my group in favour of the report which reforms the Common Fisheries Policy with regard to the organisation of the markets.

The first positive change is that discards will be reduced by stipulating that producer organisations should actively promote discard avoidance. Another merit is the modified objectives of producer organisations, which now include promoting the creation of jobs in coastal and rural areas, as well as providing vocational training to motivate young people to enter the sector. Crucially, another amended objective of producer organisations is the assurance that a fair standard of living will be implemented for those in the fisheries sector.

Finally the amended report also ensures that clearer information should be given to the consumer on the origin of the fisheries products. It also, notably, calls for the development of an EU-wide eco-label for sustainable fishery products.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Mr President, I voted against this report. The CMO was established in the 1970s with the supposed objective of ensuring stability and a fair income for fishermen. These goals were never reached. Instead, fishermen saw only decreasing returns and an industry being strangled.

I also voted against the Haglund Report which supports Individual Transferable Quotas. This is a neo-liberal project which would result in the privatisation of a natural resource. From now on, small and medium-sized fishing enterprises will decline further, with large fleets coming to the fore and coastal communities being destroyed.

The Socialist Party demands that small fishermen, workers in the industry and coastal communities be centrally positioned in the management of the fishing industry. With planning and democratic management of quotas, people working in the industry could be assured of a fair income, and sustainable use of this vital resource could be ensured as well.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, this report is the first of the three legislative proposals to reform the common fisheries policy. It aims to provide market incentives to support more sustainable practices, and to enhance the market potential of EU products. It is vital, of course, to promote a more sustainable fisheries sector but we must at the same time support fishermen.

The role of producer organisations (POs) cannot be underestimated in this equation, and I welcome the introduction of clear objectives for them to ensure that they promote profitable fishing and reject profligate fishing. I was very pleased to see the requirements that POs promote the avoidance of by-catch and the handling of remaining unwanted catch in a responsible way, not distorting the market.

Lastly, I was also pleased to support the amendment tabled by my colleague Struan Stevenson requesting that the Commission introduce an EU-wide eco-label for sustainable fisheries practice. I very much support all of these aims and I hope we will be able to make sure that our new common fisheries policy does the job we want it to do.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I would like to commend the rapporteur, Struan Stevenson, on producing an excellent report, after a lot of dialogue and a lot of amendments, but finally we have an agreement.

I am particularly happy with the role given to the producer organisations in Articles 6 to 31. I also welcome the common marketing standards in Articles 32 and 34, which will lead to greater efficiencies in terms of marketing.

As regards the stabilisation of the markets, the Commission is finally recognising the huge price volatility in the sector. We now at last have a list of fish which can be stored by freezing, salting, drying or pasteurisation in order to be withheld and released onto the market at a later date.

The minimum standards of consumer information to enable consumers to make an informed choice in Article 42 and 46 are also extremely welcome. Information is the key for consumers to make a choice.

Finally I welcome the market intelligence provisions of Article 49. This is needed in order to better understand the supply chain and understand market trends.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because the Commission’s proposal should provide a high degree of predictability for producer organisations. The common organisation of the market in fisheries products is a basic component of the common fisheries policy. Making fully informed product choices is of great importance for the European consumer. The use of an eco-label for fisheries products offers the possibility of providing clear information on the ecological sustainability of these products.

In this respect, a full consistency between the common fisheries policy and the common trade policy is required. Imported products entering the EU market should comply with the same requirements and marketing standards that the European Union producers have to meet.

Elmar Brok report (A7-0252/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the ECR accepts the reality of the CFSP and the need to engage with it. However, the CFSP must always remain subject to unanimity in the Council as my group, the ECR, does not want to see the EU undermining national sovereignty in this key area or totally usurping the role of national foreign ministries. That explains why my group abstained and could not support all aspects of the Brok report.

We have as a group engaged constructively with the External Action Service, though not uncritically, particularly over their unreasonable demand for a budget increase in this climate of austerity. I have to say that in spite of the huge crisis in the Union over the euro, the EEAS is actually up and running and that has to be recognised. The EEAS must, however, in this climate of austerity prove its value added, both in savings to the Member States, particularly the smaller ones with lower bilateral representations, and show that States such as my own, the United Kingdom, which are major international players, can see their national interests both protected and better projected through using the new EEAS service. One good example of this is the new European Compound in Juba, South Sudan, where all EU Member States are signing up to using this as a joined-up operation.

The ECR was also pleased to note a positive reference to Taiwan in the report and in particular Taiwan’s commitment to peace and security in the East Asia region. This commitment has been further reinforced by President Ma’s East China Sea Peace Initiative, a courageous and commendable effort to resolve the long-standing territorial dispute between Taiwan, China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands/Senkaku Islands. Recently tensions have suddenly escalated with China, I think it was yesterday, sending patrol boats in response to the purchase of the islands by the Japanese Government. President Ma’s imaginative and visionary plan, analogous to what happens over the Antarctic Treaty, deserves in the view of my Group, the EU’s full support.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, which is an annual report, a position paper and, above all, a document that should reflect a vision. Of course, it follows the European Union’s typical line of approach, without bringing a great number of new elements to it, but to me it was important that as part of the security component of the European policy, the rapporteur addressed certain topics of significance for both the future of a common policy, a sensitive topic in this area, and the visibility and strength of the European Union beyond its borders. I am referring to the fact that the strengthening of the European External Action Service’s capacity to act with regard to conflict prevention has been welcomed. I think it is very important to assign a substantial amount of money in the future budget for this purpose.

Secondly, an issue I would like to point out is that of the arms trade. A common position for the negotiations of the future treaty is the key to success in this area.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against this report and I would like briefly to explain why. Firstly, I share the minority view expressed by Mr Meyer and Ms Lösing in the related report. This is actually all about militarising the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The goal is to find an intervention strategy and the separation from NATO, which for me as an Austrian is not acceptable, is no longer really recognisable.

However, I also believe that the strategy on Turkey is the wrong one, including the call to open further chapters in the membership negotiations. The fact that the policy on Libya has failed has been made clear today following the dreadful attack in Benghazi. The policy on Libya has failed completely, but the report describes a very different situation. Finally, the policy on Syria is also wrong. It focuses on intervention and on putting pressure on Russia and China, which are supposed to be our partners. All of this is because certain interests in Syria need to be taken into consideration. There has been a complete failure to recognise that the rebels are speaking Saudi Arabian dialects. Not a single word has been said about Saudi Arabia. The report is one-sided and, therefore, I have voted against it.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for Mr Brok’s report, although I am well aware of the serious difficulties and obvious limitations of the EU’s foreign policy.

I would like to highlight two aspects that cause me particular concern. The first is the arms trade. We set ourselves the aim of non-proliferation and disarmament, but at the same time our legislation to control arms exports is totally inadequate. What we say we want to do, therefore, is then denied and contradicted by our behaviour.

The second area in which our limitations are all too evident is conflict prevention, which ought to make it possible to consolidate peace. The events in the Mediterranean – which have been inappropriately termed the Arab Spring – show that we were not quick enough to grasp what was happening in those countries, and the Union’s foreign policy was unable to prevent situations from developing that were really terrible for millions of people.

I hope our foreign policy will be more effective in future than it has been in recent months.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the importance of our common foreign and security policy was supposed to increase. In my opinion progress in this field is very poor and slow. There are many intentions and differing approaches. Unfortunately, there are very few hard facts. An extreme manifestation of this weakness is the activity of the battle groups in Europe. Many years have gone by but so far, these groups have not been used. One might say that the battle groups look very nice, but only on paper. We are making a mistake in Europe in devoting so little effort to military cooperation. There should be significantly broader cooperation in joint planning and in conducting joint military missions and operations. Military action should be connected, and cooperation in the areas of military research and industry should be much broader. I strongly encourage the European Commission to take more action in this field.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, I abstained from voting. The report contains a range of important arguments, regarding issues such as better use of the budget for the common foreign and security policy and diversification of energy sources. The critical position of Brussels in its relationship with Moscow is undisputed, as is the strategic significance of the Eastern Partnership. We also managed to draft a compromise provision regarding Taiwan, recognising its commitment to the process of maintaining stability in the region. Fundamentally, however, the report proposes that the role of the European External Action Service should be expanded and identifies common defence as one of the objectives. I should like to point out that there is still a disproportionately small number of Polish nationals employed in the European foreign service. In addition, this document calls on Member States to demand a permanent seat for the EU in a reformed UN Security Council. I cannot agree with these proposals.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, I voted for the adoption of this report, since it is, in my opinion, a strategic and ambitious document. In my view, recognising the development of the Neighbourhood Policy as a key objective of the common foreign and security policy is legitimate and appropriate. I welcome the emphasis on the importance of cooperation with the countries of the Eastern Partnership.

I also hope that, despite the worrying developments in the countries of the Southern Neighbourhood, an appropriate balance will be maintained, and that the Eastern Neighbourhood will still be treated as seriously as it deserves. Finally, I would like to emphasise that the appeal to the High Representative to ensure sufficient funding is available to support additional missions to monitor the elections in Ukraine is very necessary and exceptionally important.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, like many of my colleagues who participated in this part of our debate, I supported Elmar Brok’s report on the common foreign and security policy. The new position of foreign and security policy in the Treaty of Lisbon grants us new prerogatives. At the same time, however, I would like to note that many events connected inter alia with the numerous crises, including the economic crisis, have weakened interest in our neighbourhood partners, be they inside or outside Europe.

Specifically, the Arab Spring countries, such as Egypt, are drawing up new constitutions. We are not showing sufficient interest in what shape this will take. As to the Eastern Partnership, we face elections in Ukraine and in Georgia, and conflicts which have reached a deadlock such as the Transnistrian conflict or that in Nagorno-Karabakh are awaiting resolution, as are the issues of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I am sensing what I might term fatigue, even in relation to matters relating to Ukraine, because we have been unable to resolve everything. In my opinion, Parliament should not reduce or alter its concern in relation to neighbourhood issues. Neighbourhood issues are very important to us.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – Mr President, I too have supported Mr Brok’s report, as tackling global challenges can only be achieved by means of joined-up approaches. The Lisbon Treaty has provided the EU with a set of tools enabling it to speak with a single voice. However, a series of shortcomings persist as regards the common foreign and security policy. The strengthening of relations between the European External Action Service, the Commission and Member States plays an essential role. This is the only way we can achieve a synergy in the efficient implementation of the external action.

As regards the future of the CFSP, I believe the European Neighbourhood Policy calls for special attention, with a focus on its eastern dimension. The Eastern Partnership should act as an essential means of promoting the values of the EU in Eastern Europe and offering states such as the Republic of Moldova a genuine European perspective.

Carl Haglund report (A7-0225/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, since 2002 the Commission has been obliged, under a Council regulation, to report on the conservation and sustainable exportation of marine, i.e. fishery, resources and on fishing restrictions in the 12-nautical-mile zone by the end of 2011. The most recent report states that Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks are insufficient and that little progress has been made on the reduction of fleet capacity.

I am in favour of this report as it states that, in order to improve the system of fishing restrictions in the 12-nautical-mile waters, a concrete definition of over-capacity must be established at EU level, regional definitions must be accommodated and, finally, efficient data collection mechanisms with long-term management plans for all EU fisheries must be enforced rigorously.

If this, which is part of a three-pronged new legislative package, still fails, then in my view the whole of the CFP must be questioned and perhaps should be abandoned and repatriated to the Member States. So this is the last chance to get this thing right for our fishermen in the European Union.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I also voted for this report even though I am always very wary when I hear the word ‘conservation’, as we have a tendency to think of the environment without the needs of the fishing community. This report is different, however. It is clear that Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks have been insufficient and that there is equally little progress on the reduction of fleet capacity.

The system of fishing restrictions in the 12-nautical-mile waters was working well and I think it could potentially be extended to a regime of 10 to 20 miles to more effectively achieve the objectives. Our fishermen need to be better informed as to why certain restrictions might be put in place, as very often self-policing is the only realistic option; overfishing will not be addressed in a proper manner otherwise. We need to interact with RACs and other relevant stakeholders for effective conservation. Furthermore, a mechanism at EU level to compensate fishermen affected by economic or social repercussions as well as by ecosystem protection measures could be established. This is something I would strongly support.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report, as the existing fishing quota system has brought to the spotlight the short-term concerns of the Member States, showing that the sustainability of the fisheries sector has become of secondary importance. Regionalising the common fisheries policy should be considered a solution for addressing the current shortcomings. The Commission must initiate long-term plans which should take into account, on the one hand, the needs of the Member States, and on the other hand, the need to preserve fish stocks.

Around 60% of the European fish stocks are being exploited beyond the maximum sustainability limit. This overexploitation is detrimental to other species as well, such as the dolphins in the Black Sea. Very often, they accidentally get caught in the fishing nets. In this regard, I have initiated a written declaration on the need to set up measures for the protection of the dolphins in the Black Sea.

Nikolaos Salavrakos report (A7-0253/2012)

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, reforming the common fisheries policy is a necessary decision that cannot be put off any longer. We fish too much in Europe, and we often fish badly.

If we want to safeguard marine biological resources, conserve the marine ecosystem and ensure the survival of the fisheries sector, we have to give overexploited fish stocks time to recover. However, the view that prevailed in this Chamber today by only a few votes was the blinkered view of those who want to maintain the status quo and continue to condemn our seas and the whole fisheries sector to certain death.

That is why I voted against the report on the reform of the common fisheries policy. We need a well-thought-out reform that allows for the sustainable exploitation of marine resources and not a watered-down text that offers no future prospects. We need multiannual management plans and a precise timetable, as well as a network of protected areas.

I welcome sanctions against those Member States that do not abide by the rules, carry out inadequate controls, exceed their quotas and do not provide reliable data. Greater protection for the fish in our seas means more jobs for European fishermen, but there are some people in this Chamber who have not yet understood that.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, common fisheries policy reform, as a package, will now hopefully mean the Commission will be encouraged, in a non-binding way, to strengthen measures for the conservation of marine biological resources. This is very much in line with my party’s ambitious 10-year biodiversity strategy.

Hopefully this will also ensure socio-economic sustainability – which is in keeping with our commitment to build a more responsible economic model and to improve job prospects in the fisheries and aquaculture industries – and strengthen regionalisation. This is in harmony with our national aim in the United Kingdom to create a fairer and more balanced economy, where new businesses and economic opportunities are more evenly shared between regions and industries.

The common fisheries policy now either needs to be urgently and radically reformed and modernised or, frankly, abandoned altogether as an EU competence.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I am pleased that this motion for a resolution was adopted by the House. It is important that we have a coherent and clear strategy going forward so that fishermen can plan with better certainty for the investment that they put in.

The EU’s aquaculture sector, if properly managed on the basis of global sustainability, could, as the motion says, make a greater contribution to the needs of European society in terms of food security and quality, employment, environmental protection and the maintenance of dynamic and varied fishing and coastal communities.

Finally, as regards Ireland, I am particularly pleased that the resolution calls on the Commission to investigate the reduction in fish stocks owing to natural predators such as sea lions, seals and cormorants, and to draw up and implement management plans to regulate these populations in cooperation with the affected and relevant Member States.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I also voted for this report, because the European fisheries reform must take into consideration the actual situation in each Member State. Therefore, the Commission should carry out a series of studies on the fish stocks available throughout the EU. Estimates as to the sustainable exploitation of these stocks are required. These estimates should offer a timetable for reducing exploitation, thereby helping restore the stocks in a relatively short time.

It is particularly important that these studies be adapted to each Member State and take into account their actual fishing capacities. However, the possibility of regionalising the common fisheries policy must be looked into more closely. This would ensure a much more efficient use of the funds allocated to fishing activities.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). - Mr President, we have heard concern about the fishing industry from the PPE Members, from the Irish, from the Spanish and the Italians and others. I do not think they know what they have been doing today. We know we are overfishing, we know our fish stocks are depleted and yet they voted today for an amendment which says we shall not rebuild our fish stocks. Let me repeat that: this House voted by a majority of just five for a PPE amendment, signed by Jim Higgins and others, which says we shall not attempt to rebuild our fish stocks.

I am sure they did that for the best possible reasons – give the fishing industry another year, do not make it too difficult by cutting the quotas – but only when you rebuild fish stocks, give a bit of room for the fish to breathe and to grow and to multiply, that is the only way in which the fishing industry is going to have a secure future. I do not know what our citizens out there will think. They will think the people over there are utterly mad to have done that. Of course we need the fish stocks rebuilding. It is utterly mad. They have two months in which to rethink before we have to consider the legislation and vote for it finally.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, this report provides an overview of Parliament’s response to the Commission’s suggestions for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I support the general thrust of the measures for conservation in marine biology.

But this own-initiative report has given us just a little peek into how the arguments are going to be played out in the coming months. We have just seen a little bit of it now. There will be arguments and compromises over words. We have seen it here in the amendment attempting to change wording from levels above maximum sustainable yield (MSY) to close to MSY.

There will be the liberal use of euphemisms, such as ‘renewal’, when what we are really talking about is giving public money to replace boats, making them bigger with higher capacity and not necessarily doing anything for the conservation of fish stocks.

I am committed to working on common fisheries policy reform towards sustainability, but unfortunately, due to the amendments, I was not able to support this report.

Written explanations of vote

Antonyia Parvanova, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio report (A7-0244/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting for this report because it aims to strengthen the rights of victims in the European Union. I consider the proposal to create a common set of rules in relation to victims of crime throughout the Member States to be of the utmost importance and usefulness, as rights such as the right to be heard, the right to information, and the right to understand and to be understood are essential, as is access to aid for the victim, the easier identification of vulnerable victims and protection for victims during questioning processes or criminal prosecution. Such a set of rules should be capable of increasing confidence in the criminal justice system for all of the Member States, while also ensuring greater judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual understanding and the promotion of fundamental European values. For all of these reasons, I support this proposal in favour of the victims of crime, who deserve more aid, assistance and information from the competent authorities.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) According to Eurostat data, 30 million crimes are committed against persons or property in the European Union every year, and many of them are not reported. In fact, as the report states, ‘all too often victims do not report a crime, due to fear, uncertainty, a lack of trust or information’. Moreover, the Commission estimates that the overall cost of crime amounts to EUR 233 billion, and that is due not only to the damage caused by the crimes themselves but also to the lack of appropriate support services to help victims recover and cope with legal proceedings. I strongly support the work done by the Commission and my fellow Members, because winning every citizen’s trust in European justice will require a comprehensive and efficient European legal framework. An initial major step forward was taken on 13 December last year when the directive on the European protection order was adopted.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) The Greek Communist Party MEPs abstained on the report and the Commission proposal, because they promote the harmonisation and homogenisation of basic provisions of national criminal law at EU level, thereby restricting the sovereign rights of the Member States. This forms part of the EU strategy on a ‘single area of freedom, security and justice’, the aim of which is to effectively protect the exploitative system, by beefing up repressive mechanisms and restricting grassroots freedoms and democratic rights. Criminal prosecution and the terms on which penal justice is dispensed come within the sovereign competence of each Member States and, under a series of euro-unifying acts, are gradually and methodically being ceded to the euro-unifying institutions. For that reason, issues are being selected that touch a sore spot with the workers, such as child protection and protection of victims of crime, in order to establish the apparent need for common Union criminal law in the minds of the people. Furthermore, the provisions of the directive that allow victims to testify without being physically present in court are dangerous. Provisions such as this promote the ‘anti-terrorism’ legislation of the EU and its Member States, by eliminating some of the defendant’s fundamental rights of defence, such as the facility for the defence to test the reliability of the testimony in live proceedings.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report for a directive on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. This directive is aimed at defending the rights of victims as effectively as possible, providing victims and their family members with support and protection, and ensuring the protection of victims’ rights in criminal proceedings by providing them with clear information about the status of proceedings and decisions taken in a language they understand. Harmonising these minimum standards would boost EU citizens’ trust in their own judicial system and those of other Member States. I welcome the proposal to adopt a comprehensive European legal framework granting victims, irrespective of their nationality or the place where the crime took place, rights to information, to interpretation and translation, to access victim support services, to avoid contact between victim and offender, the right to protection during questioning in a criminal investigation, and so on. I agree that a unified definition of victim should be provided, which would grant the status of victim not only to the persons harmed by the offence, but also to close family members.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Today the European Parliament voted with an overwhelming majority for the Community directive concerning the protection of victims, which establishes minimum standards for Member States regarding the protection and support of victims. With this law, the Community justice system will be supplemented by a practical instrument that will have tangible effects for EU citizens as well, and as a result victims, and also their family members, can finally receive sufficient attention and support. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which was presented on the symbolic date of 11 September, and which allows us to remember and pay homage to all of the victims of crime, along with their families. Europe needs a common and transparent justice system, and should ensure that the rights and protection of victims of crime are strengthened. This Directive constitutes an important step in the construction of a European area of freedom, security and justice. All victims of crime, regardless of the degree of damage suffered, are covered by this directive and should be offered support and protection within their country, as well as in the other Member States. Closer interinstitutional cross-border cooperation is essential, including the effective sharing of information and best practice.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Winning people’s trust in the justice system is one of the European Union’s top priorities.

I welcome the Commission’s overall concept of establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, provided that there is a greater focus on support services for victims who are at a particularly high risk of suffering further harm or intimidation during criminal proceedings.

Recent estimates put the annual cost of crime to victims, employers, the state and society as a whole in the EU at EUR 233 billion. These costs result not just from the crimes themselves but from the lack of appropriate support for victims. I therefore welcome any effort to strengthen victim’s rights and to provide adequate support services, as these should be seen as cost-effective measures that will positively contribute to facilitating the reporting of crimes, and to maintaining the sustainability of national justice and health systems.

I also consider it crucial that the directive provides a unified definition of ‘victim’ that grants the status of victim not only to the persons harmed by the offence, but also to close family members.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 and the guidelines envisaged by the Stockholm Programme, protection of victims of crime in the EU has been at the top of the EU’s agenda. Closer cooperation among Member States and better coordination of actions in respect of victims would help to reduce the negative impact of crimes and the risk of secondary and repeated victimisation and stigmatisation. All victims, regardless of their origin or the harm suffered, should receive free support, and should be treated with respect in a language they understand. According to the concept of victim, support should also be offered to victims’ children and family members. Both during and after criminal proceedings, it is very important for all possible measures to be taken to protect victims’ private and family life. In particular, attention should be drawn to the media, which often encourages victims to feel vulnerable and disoriented, and we therefore need to ensure that the media pursue self-regulatory measures. In order to avoid unintended discrimination, persons with disabilities, women or children who have suffered a sexual assault, victims of terrorism and organised crime, should not be defined as ‘vulnerable victims’, but as ‘victims with specific needs’ and they should be guaranteed specific protection measures, such as provision of shelter, medical support, legal and psychological counselling.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report, which shows great sensitivity in identifying possible ambiguities and gaps in the otherwise valid structure of the directive issued by the Commission.

In order to exercise their rights effectively, the victims of crime may need more specific measures and practical and operational tools, especially in certain areas and in the case of vulnerable groups in society.

In this respect, I would highlight the comments included in the 2011 Europol report on human trafficking, which clearly points to economic weakness and cultural conditioning as decisive factors in facilitating the operations of criminal organisations. The victims of these operations are often children or women from countries marked by poverty and severe political instability, who are exploited in a wide range of activities from construction to textiles or even begging and prostitution.

We should not forget that long-term situations of cultural and social fragility in certain areas of our countries still foster problems such as domestic violence and crimes against the person, which are very rarely reported or pursued in court. Further measures providing physical and personal protection, immediate support, and legal representation in criminal and civil court cases and in relations with the police are therefore essential for the directive to be properly implemented and for victims to be able to exercise their rights.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday 11 September 2012, I voted in favour of the report on the minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. The facts are alarming: Seventy-five million people are victims of crime each year in the European Union. There was therefore an urgent need to take action to improve the support and assistance offered to victims of crime committed in another country, who often face serious problems because of differences in culture, language and legislation. I therefore support this directive, which provides, among other things, individual assessments, counselling and interpretation and translation services.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Strengthening the rights of victims of crime is inextricably linked with improving the situation of victims across the EU, regardless of their nationality or the place where the offence took place. Polish interests in this matter coincide with those represented by other Member States of the European Union. The costs of such a decision are certainly high for Europe, but human life is incomparably more valuable, which is why the actions taken by Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio met with my approval.

The work on the resulting document was challenging, not least because of differences between the legal systems of the Member States, specifically in relation to the definition of victims of crime. However, I welcome the final version of the document, which was produced as a result of compromises. I would like to thank the rapporteur for her efforts in preparing this report.

  John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark and William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. − UKIP voted against this report as it is yet more EU legislation over criminal law. The EU has no democratic right to legislate in this area and law-making should be left to elected politicians, accountable to the public, not unelected foreign Commissioners in Brussels. Of course, victims of crime should have the strongest rights and legal protection, but that is already afforded in UK law and “minimum standards” at EU level may well create a race to the bottom which makes our criminal justice system weaker. Withdrawal from the EU, European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice would be a major step forward for victims of crime seeking swift and proportional justice.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. − I entirely support this directive with the changes proposed in this report, because it will strengthen the rights of victims all over Europe. I also voted in favour of this report because of the attention given to vulnerable categories in society, like children and people with special needs. In the past, citizens of the EU residing or travelling in another EU Member State faced serious difficulties in getting the same level of protection as the nationals of that Member State. This directive will create a set of minimum common standards across the EU for victims of crime, creating a shorter and easier process for victims to receive the support they need. Ultimately, this will ensure that each victim is treated with respect and dignity without any sort of discrimination anywhere in the EU.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I completely support the establishment of minimum standards on the rights, support and protection for victims of crime, regardless of their nationality or the place where the crime occurred. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to strengthen the rights of victims in general, and in particular the rights of victims with specific needs and those who have suffered a particularly horrible experience, as well as ensuring that the victim’s privacy is protected, regardless of the nature of the damage suffered. I voted for this report for those reasons.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Confidence in justice is a priority for all citizens, especially for victims whose rights are ignored or not respected. We urgently need a common and transparent justice system applicable in all EU Member States. This directive is not limited to protecting victims’ rights and offering them support and protection, but will also help European citizens gain trust in their national judicial system and that of their EU neighbours by harmonising the minimum standards.

In order to assess in detail the circumstances and victims’ characteristics, we need to define ‘gender-based violence’ and ‘violence in close relationships’. Gender-based violence refers to violence that is directed against a person because of his or her gender. Violence in close relationships includes violence perpetrated by partners or ex-partners or other family members, leading to discrimination and violation of the fundamental freedoms of the victims.

The particular situation of victims with specific needs must be taken into account when designing appropriate support services or training practitioners who are in immediate contact with the victims. To this end, the directive includes a number of rights which victims should be assured of and thus fills a significant gap in human rights protection for victims of crime.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This directive is part of a package of legislative measures aimed at strengthening the rights, support and protection of victims of crime in the EU. The EU therefore needs an integrated and coordinated approach in this area in order to ensure that the rights and needs of victims of crime are respected and enforced in every aspect.

Minimum standards are therefore being established for cases in which crimes have been committed in the EU and for criminal cases arising in the EU, thus strengthening confidence in the criminal justice systems in all of the Member States, which should contribute to more effective judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual confidence, and should also promote a culture of fundamental rights in the EU. I therefore support this initiative, which should allow existing instruments to be strengthened and complemented. The fact that an agreement has been reached at first reading is also positive. I now hope that the Member States can do their part and proceed to a timely transposition over the next three years.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I support the report on strengthening the rights of the victims of crime across the EU. Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 and the guidelines towards a European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the protection of victims of any crime has been at the top of the EU’s agenda, as envisaged by the Stockholm Programme.

A common and transparent justice system applicable in all EU Member States should rely on the victims’ need for support, including victims with specific needs or the so-called vulnerable victims, such as the victims of gender-based violence, children and persons with disabilities. In Europe more than one-fifth of all women have experienced physical violence at least once during their adult lives and more than one-tenth have suffered sexual violence involving the use of force. In this context, I believe it is crucial to criminalise all forms of gender-based violence and provide their victims with special measures for prevention, protection and redress.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which aims to strengthen the rights of our fellow citizens wherever they are in the Union. One of the measures provided here is better cooperation between the competent authorities, which means that the victims will no longer make poor exchanges of information which sometimes delays their care. The European Union must above all serve our people and this report once again highlights the need to take their expectations into account.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report as it establishes minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. I consider the proposals relating to support services for victims to be very important, as they run a particularly high risk of suffering further harm, intimidation or repeated victimisation during criminal proceedings.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that it is only fair that, in a space that to all intents and purposes is a single area, there are common standards of protection for victims throughout the EU. This protection, as the Commission rightly advocates, should be applied regardless of the nationality of the victim or the place where the crime was committed. Last December in this Parliament we adopted measures aimed at ensuring that all defendants have certain basic rights during criminal cases. It is now time to give the same protection to the victims of crimes, who often feel helpless for that very reason when faced with a process with which they are not familiar and do not understand, in particular when that process takes place in a foreign country. Ensuring appropriate monitoring and protection for victims of crime is a matter of basic justice, and the Commission is on the right track.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose behind the creation of the EU was that all citizens should feel united in a project based around well-being and security. The free movement of people and goods can only be fully enjoyed if we feel that our rights are safeguarded in any Member State in which we find ourselves. It is vital that we know that, no matter where we are, there is always someone looking after us. When a terrorist attack occurs, identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to trial is a major concern. Everything revolves around the criminal. International organisations often sponsor the defence of terrorists and defend the rights of prisoners. However, most of the victims and their families are forgotten. Apart from being unjust, this is also inhumane. I welcome the presentation of this proposal, which clarifies the rights of citizens as victims of crimes including gender violence, trafficking, rape and terrorism in any EU Member State. I would congratulate the rapporteurs on the excellent work that they have carried out on behalf of the European public, in particular those who, for whatever reason – and it could happen to any one of us – may be victims. This is how a Europe of citizens should be constructed: as a Europe that does not abandon us when we are vulnerable.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report proposes the adoption of measures to support and protect the victims of various kinds of violence against people. Domestic violence, discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, human trafficking, exploitation through prostitution, sexual and psychological harassment, female genital mutilation, and many others, are some of the forms of violence that are addressed here. It also refers to the need for expert professionals to be involved in these processes of support and protection. We appreciate these proposals, although we do not support the proposals for the transfer of more power to the EU through new legislation. That is why we abstained. We have a few other considerations. We also believe that it is necessary to safeguard the right to a hearing of minors, and we consider the possibility of the victim being able to request the review of decisions made by the competent authorities to be fair.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of this dossier as it is my belief that more should be done to safeguard the needs of victims in all Member States throughout the Union. Victims should be able to receive free support from the moment they have suffered harm in order for their recovery from the trauma to be facilitated as much as possible. This directive would establish minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims, which would also ensure that quality support would be given. Further to this, I agree that victims’ rights not only need to be standardised throughout the whole of the EU but victims must also be made aware of their rights within the framework. For this reason, information and awareness-raising campaigns, research and education programmes and cooperation with civil society agencies should be established by means of well orchestrated campaigns throughout EU Member States.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Antonyia Parvanova and Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio was adopted by a large majority (611 votes in favour) and I am pleased about that. This report seeks to strengthen the rights of victims in the European Union. The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, the cornerstone of which is the principle of mutual recognition of judgements and other decisions made by the judicial authorities in civil and criminal matters in the EU. The report stresses the need to improve support services to victims who are exposed to intimidation or other harm during criminal proceedings.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) There are many different types of crime. However, they all have one thing in common – they expose people to violence. The proposal for a directive defines the term victims of crime, and this is what we should focus our attention on. It is very important that these persons should have confidence in the administration of justice. For this reason, the European Union should introduce a transparent and uniform legal act which guarantees victims of crime, regardless of their nationality or the country in which the offence took place, minimum protection of their rights.

I agree with the rapporteur, that in order to take all possible steps to achieve greater protection of the rights of victims of crime, we should establish a European network for observation and aid to victims with a view to setting up a database of statistics including the number, age, gender and nationality of the victims. This information could certainly be used for further legislative work. It is also necessary for officers who deal with victims of crime to be able to provide specialist support and assistance. I therefore agree that they should undergo training, in cooperation with non-governmental organisations, to help them deal with victims of crime in an appropriate way, having regard to the nature of the crime.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − This proposed directive seeks to establish minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. I welcome the fact that it will create EU-wide basic standards as to what will happen if an EU citizen is the victim of crime anywhere in the EU. This means, for example, that EU citizens will have the right to receive a copy of their crime statement at a police station in their own language, information on where to go if they need medical help or emotional support, etc. Also, for the first time, the definition of a victim has been broadened to include the family of a person who is murdered or who dies in a terrorist attack. I also welcome the fact that the proposals include a ‘children’s rights package’, which will establish a set of minimum standards for child victims.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The Commission’s proposal to draw up a new directive will allow a comprehensive legal framework to be adopted that will offer all crime victims, regardless of their legal status or recognition, the broadest possible protection on EU territory. The Commission extended the rights of all victims of any crime to the minimum standards across the EU, and gives all victims, irrespective of their nationality or the place where the crime took place, the right to information, the right to understand and be understood, the right to interpreting and translation, and other rights, including acknowledgement of the definition of victim for immediate family members. The new directive should defend the rights of victims, but also create confidence among EU citizens in national and neighbouring judicial systems with regard to their harmonisation, and I personally fully support these steps.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Around 15% of the EU population, namely approximately 75 million citizens are directly affected by the approximately 30 million crimes (excluding minor crimes) committed annually (2007 Eurostat statistics).

Previous regulations for the protection of victims of crime, as well as their implementation, have so far been deficient. At the same time, the current legislations of Member States show great differences, while social dynamics create new regulatory requirements.

Given the above, I support this report because the proposed measures will: - ensure that victims and the persons accompanying them receive full and accurate information on their rights and are treated with respect;

- provide legal, financial, psychological and practical support services to the victims;

- ensure communication in a language understood by the victims;

- ensure effective access to compensation and redress for the harm suffered.

I also believe that when establishing support measures, it would be useful to take into account factors such as the age and the intellectual capabilities of victims, their personal characteristics, or the type of crime, which would render vulnerable the persons falling outside the categories established as generally vulnerable.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report. With this report victims will have the right to have access, through a dedicated office that will be created in each Member State, to compensation and practical resources like medical support, legal advice, interpretation and translation. The legislation ensures that all measures are taken to minimise the difficulties faced by UK citizens who become victims of crime.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Human rights, and especially respect for the rights of women and children, constitute fundamental values which must be respected. I also welcome this report in view of the vulnerability of children’s minds, and the further victimisation of victims, who would be badly affected by public judicial procedures, which might ultimately present a considerable barrier to the development of social relationships with the world around them. Crimes linked to child pornography extend beyond the boundaries of individual Member States in many cases, and therefore require the unified, cohesive regulation of this issue.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of Ms Parvanova’s report on the minimum standards on the rights, support, and protection of victims of crime because it draws necessary attention to an issue that needs to be addressed by the EU. First and foremost, the provisions will establish uniformity throughout the EU for victims’ rights and protection, ensuring all victims of crime will be treated in the same way regardless of the Member State in which they are located. Notably, the report encourages the individual assessment of a victim’s needs, particularly those with specific needs, when determining the methodology of protection. It recognises the unique nature of gender-based discrimination and urges particular protection for those who are repeat victims of crime.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the text on minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime so that these standards benefit all victims in the EU and strengthen their protection. These include, in particular, providing support and protection for victims and their families through a confidential support service set up by Member States to protect them against any retaliation. Access to support services such as counselling and practical support should be determined on the basis of an individual assessment of their specific needs.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report. A common and transparent justice system applicable in all EU Member States is an urgent need if the EU wants to fulfil the Stockholm Programme. I am sure that this directive will not just defend victims’ rights, but also will help European citizens gain trust in their national judicial system and that of their EU neighbours by harmonising these minimum standards.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted firmly in favour of the report by Ms Parvanova and Ms Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, whereby Parliament formalised its commitment to protecting the victims of crime. The initiative comes within – and rounds off – the framework of the 2009 Stockholm Programme, which in 2011 was enhanced with some important new legislative instruments: the directive on the European Protection Order, the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings. The directive follows the framework decision of 2001, which introduced specific requirements favouring victims. I welcome the extension of the definition to include the relatives of victims in a direct line as well. Lastly, I congratulate the rapporteurs on having succeeded in drafting a cross-cutting text that deals with all kinds of victim, while devoting special attention to ‘particularly vulnerable victims’.

  Arlene McCarthy (S&D), in writing. − This report is a step towards the creation of a common EU framework for the minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. There are 30 million criminal offences recorded annually in the EU each year and all too often victims and their families are denied critical information and support in their time of need. We urgently need a fast and simple EU system for victims, which explains their rights to them, gives them information in their own language and provides essential support to families and victims. This law is a tribute to campaigners like Gary Dunne’s parents and Maggie Hughes, who have turned personal tragedy into a commitment that others will not face the challenges they did. I hope this new law will ensure that vulnerable young women are not subjected to additional trauma in order to get justice. I hope the British Government will maintain its opt-in to this law and not give in to the Eurosceptics, denying British victims of crime vital protection. Labour Euro MPs are committed to strengthening the rights of victims and therefore voted in favour of this report. We will continue our work to ensure that this new law lives up to campaigners’ calls.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report turns proposals for minimum standards guaranteeing the rights of victims of crime into minimalist standards. The victim is no longer guaranteed the right to appeal a decision not to prosecute, except in cases of serious crime and where there has been no settlement. The option to start public proceedings by instituting a civil action or by summoning the alleged offender to appear before a criminal court is not even considered. The victim is no longer guaranteed the right to a written translation of all the documents relating to their case. As for reimbursement of legal fees, this is now random. I voted against.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Setting minimum standards in the area of the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, which the submitted proposal covers, will help protect crime victims throughout the European Union by creating general standards for guarantees of victims’ rights regardless of which Member State the victim is in. In my opinion, the basis of the victim protection system as a whole is the simplification of the reporting of crimes, in which care must be taken to eliminate ‘repeat victimisation’. Many criminological and psychological studies point out the fact that many victims do not report the crimes committed against them due to concerns about an insensitive and often impersonal, routine approach taken by law enforcement agencies. We cannot therefore merely state, with regret, that it is mainly victims of human trafficking, sexual abuse against children, sexual exploitation and pornography who are involved: we must move towards the adoption of concrete legal measures that have an EU-wide reach. For these reasons, I support the proposed directive that has been submitted.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I would like to express my full support for this report, the aim of which is to provide greater protection and assurances for victims of crime.

A person who has been the victim of theft, assault, harassment or more serious crimes such as rape or events associated with organised crime or terrorism should be able to feel appropriately protected and respected, so as not to fall victim a second time to the same violence as before or to problems that may arise subsequently.

I must stress in this respect that particular attention and specific measures should be devoted to women, children and people with disabilities, on whom a crime may have very serious effects that are difficult to recover from over time. I also welcome measures that are uniform across Europe, to ensure adequate standards in all countries and also to protect victims of criminal acts perpetrated in a Member State other than their usual country of residence.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) The establishment of a single area of justice requires that the rights of participants in judicial or administrative proceedings be guaranteed equally throughout the EU. It is therefore really important that today we adopted a directive harmonising the rights throughout the EU of those who are often the weakest participants in proceedings – victims. This directive will be particularly important in the case of crimes with a cross-border dimension. I also encourage the Council to approve the text approved by Parliament as a matter of urgency.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Istat, the Italian National Institute of Statistics, reports that the number of women aged between 16 and 70 who say they have been victims of physical or sexual violence at least once in their lives is 6 743 000, or 31.9%. For rape alone, the percentage is 4.8% – more than a million women. Moreover, 14.3% of women say they have been the victims of violence by their partners: 12% physical violence and 6.1% sexual violence. Of the remaining 24.7%, 9.8% have been the target of physical violence and 20.4% of sexual violence. As many as 2.4% of women say they have been raped by their partners, and 2.9% by strangers. Of the women who claim to have suffered violence from their partners, 93% say they did not report it to the authorities; the proportion rises to 96% when the attacker was not the partner. These figures are appalling and raise a fundamental question that may perhaps find an answer in the resolution we have adopted today. Why is this kind of violence not being reported? It is because the victims do not feel protected. Victim protection programmes are therefore heading in the right direction of providing support for women, as well as for the elderly and children.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported the adoption of the directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, as I believe that it is important to guarantee all victims of crime the necessary protection and recognition through the entire European Union, regardless of their legal status. It is important to guarantee to victims of crime the right to free legal assistance, the right to victim support services, the right to give clarifications, the right to avoid contact between victim and perpetrator, the right to obtain protection during interrogation, and so on. I also believe that it is very important that the directive provides for a single definition of victims of crime, which also grants the status of ‘victim of crime’ to the close family members of victims. I also welcome the rapporteur’s proposal to criminalise all forms of gender discrimination and to make special preventive and protective measures and legal remedies available to victims. In order to ensure that victims of crime know their rights in the European Union, their awareness should be raised through awareness campaigns and educational programmes undertaken in cooperation with various non-profit organisations.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report. To date, the EU has not had an integrated European legislative framework that grants all victims of crime recognition and the broadest possible protection within EU territory, regardless of their legal status. This initiative helps to broaden these rights, such as the right to information, the right to interpretation and translation, the right to be heard, the right to compensation and the right to avoid contact between the perpetrator and the victim. However, it notes that there is no definition of ‘victim’ in Community legislation and that this needs to be clarified in future legislative acts. At the same time, notwithstanding the list of rights provided for in the Commission communication on victims of crime, certain points are missing, such as psychological support for victims, additional protection for victims with special needs and safeguarding of the privacy of victims. These points are covered in the European Parliament report.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. The new directive proposes to establish minimum standards on the rights, support, recognition and the widest protection within the territory of the EU of victims of crime, regardless of their legal status, whether in terms of content or implementation. Since confidence in justice is a priority for all citizens, especially for victims who feel their rights are unheard and out of reach, I think this proposal for a directive is an appropriate means of closing the many gaps and overcoming the many obstacles that currently exist in the single market and in the European area of freedom, security and justice.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the adoption of this report on the Commission's proposal for a directive on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, which is part of a package of legislative measures aimed at strengthening the rights of victims in the EU and which also includes a proposal for a regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters and a communication on strengthening victims’ rights in the EU.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 and the guidelines for a European area of freedom, security and justice, as the Stockholm Programme envisages, protection of victims of any crime in the EU has been at the top of the EU's agenda. On the basis of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, there is a need to adopt a comprehensive European legal framework offering all victims of crime, regardless of their legal status, recognition and the widest protection within the territory of the Union, and to provide a unified definition of ‘victim’ that grants the status of victim not only to the persons harmed by the offence, but also to close family members. We voted for this proposal in order to strengthen victims’ rights and ensure greater protection for their private lives.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Ms Jiménez-Becerril Barrio on her work.

With the adoption of this report, and having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0275) and the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 7 December 2011, Parliament can ensure that any victim of crime will enjoy the same rights and an assessment of his or her specific needs anywhere in the EU.

The most positive aspect of the report, however, is that from now on victims of crimes such as robbery, theft, assault, rape, harassment, hate crime, terrorist attacks or people trafficking will no longer encounter any problems caused by cultural, language or legal differences, and above all will be assisted and supported by free and confidential support services (such as counselling) from the time they are affected by the crime, regardless of where the crime occurs.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Gender-based violence as well as violence in close relationships is defined for the first time in EU legislation (recital 8f) which is regarded as a huge success due to the fact that Commissioner Reding's proposal was gender blind; in fact the seriousness of gender-based violence was denied, as was the request for a separate directive on gender-based violence. The Greens also managed to highlight and include reference to victims of race, hate or other bias crimes. Another success was our proposals regarding access to victim rights, support and protection without discrimination of any kind, including residence status, and regardless of victim’ participation in criminal proceedings, which were adopted by the rapporteurs and the Commission, and were thus accepted by Council as well. This means that irregular migrants who are victims of crime will have access to the rights, support and protection afforded by the directive, regardless of whether the victim makes a formal complaint of a criminal offence. The agreed wording also adopts the language of the Charter of Fundamental Rights regarding the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which is broader than the five grounds of discrimination protected by the EU equality directives.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this directive which aims to provide basic rights to victims of robbery, assault, rape, harassment, terrorist attack or human trafficking throughout the European Union. Each year, nearly one in six Europeans is the victim of a serious crime. However, the treatment and protection of victims tended to vary greatly from one country to another. It was time to fill this gap in human rights and rectify this legal loophole.

Specifically: whether someone is a victim of a road accident in the south of France, a robbery on the streets of Milan, London or Berlin, or is assaulted (robbery, burglary, rape, harassment, hate crime, terrorist attack or human trafficking), each victim will be afforded the same level of protection. We have also included a guarantee to provide assistance when information regarding the release of the offender is presented to the victim; the painful legal developments in Belgium this September further highlight the crucial need for support for victims at this time …

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The strengthening of this Directive is of the utmost importance in order to increase the rights of victims in the EU, and the support and protection that they are given following any crime within the EU. I consider this report to be an important measure that expands the rights of victims of any type of crime through the application of minimum standards across the EU. I would like to emphasise a number of points made in the report, in particular the protection of victims with specific needs, adopting methods and giving support, taking into account the type of harm suffered, individual assessment and the training of the competent bodies, understanding of the gender dynamics of the rights of victims and greater cooperation and coordination in order to ensure the protection of victims across the Member States. This protection should be extended to the victim’s family, support should be provided throughout the legal process, and the victims should be informed in a clear and comprehensible way. An area of freedom, security and justice should have the citizen at its core.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Resolution on the proposal for a directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime.

Victims of crime should be recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive and professional manner without discrimination of any kind based on any ground such as race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, gender, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, residence status or state of health.

Information and advice provided by competent authorities, victim support services and restorative justice services should as far as possible be given through a range of media in a manner which can be understood by the victim. The victim should have the right to challenge a decision finding that there is no need for translation or interpretation, in accordance with procedures in national law. Victims should also receive information on any right to appeal of a decision to release the offender, if such a right exists in national law.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I have voted in favour of this report. This is the first attempt that we have made here to lay down common foundations for the protection of victims. This is an extremely important issue, as there is a clear need to improve the protection available for victims almost everywhere. The Commission must now act quickly and indicate how this can be put into practice.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − This report, which has my full support, will help minimise the difficulties faced by EU citizens when they become victims of crime in an EU country other than their own. As a result of this legislation, each Member State will provide specialist support services for foreign crime victims, including free translation and interpretation services and access to information on any medical help that may be required in the aftermath of the incident. This report will be instrumental in ensuring that the 15% of EU citizens who are estimated to become victims of crime each year while travelling or working within the EU receive the support they should rightly be entitled to.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The creation of minimum standards for the protection of victims of crime forms the basis for providing the best possible support and protection for victims throughout the European Union and for strengthening the confidence of citizens in the legal system. The aim is to reduce victims’ fear of reporting crimes. Minimum standards such as the right to information, the right to understand and be understood, the right to an interpreter, support for victims, the right to be heard and restorative justice are a step in this direction. The friends and relatives of victims are also affected by crime and should be included in the support for victims.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − This law will provide vital protection to UK citizens who are unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime in another EU country. Being the victim of a crime is always a traumatic experience, but it is even more so when the crime takes place in a different country, away from the support of family and friends and where victims may not speak the language.

The proposals will cover victims of human trafficking, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, violence against women, terrorism, hate crimes and organised crime. However, anyone who is a victim of any sort of crime in one of the EU’s 27 Member States can now expect to receive the same minimum level of treatment and care wherever the crime takes place. The law will ensure that victims have access to medical and legal support, compensation and, crucially, interpretation and translation services, so that they are not left confused and distressed and feeling unable to access justice due to a failure to understand another country’s legal system.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The directive laying down minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime has my full support. Firstly, the directive will strengthen the rights of victims of crime, providing them with additional support and protection. Secondly, it will enable European citizens to trust the justice system. Additionally, it will deepen cooperation and increase coordination between Member States by creating formal and informal structures for cooperation. Such a coordinated approach to victims of crime will help to minimise the negative impact of crime.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Unfortunately, experience still shows that in many cases victims of crime have fewer rights than the offender. Less time is devoted to victims of crime, and their rights are forgotten. I therefore welcome today’s decision by the European Parliament to change this state of affairs. My main objective as Minister for Justice was to give priority to the rights of victims, the rights of ordinary people over the rights of thugs and criminals. I hope this decision will be implemented as soon as possible, and that Member States will finally guarantee full protection of victims of crime.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We support this report as it calls for attention to be paid to integrated protection from various kinds of violence against people: domestic violence, discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, human trafficking, exploitation through prostitution, sexual and psychological harassment, female genital mutilation, and many others. However, we do not agree with a greater transfer of power in this area to the EU, as this is an issue of principle and sovereignty in judicial matters. Portugal already has appropriate legislation in many of the areas mentioned, in particular in relation to the protection of victims of domestic violence, the right of minors to receive a hearing and the protection of minors. The reality that Portugal is facing is, rather, a lack of public investment in the implementation of practical measures to support the victim.

Vital Moreira report (A7-0212/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, given that this proposal by the Commission seeks to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 on the opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for certain meat and cereal products to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which confers powers on the Commission to adopt the necessary implementing measures and amend the Regulation, should the volumes and other conditions of quota arrangements be adjusted, in particular by decisions to conclude agreements with third countries. As a Member of Parliament, I support the rapporteur’s position that those powers should be aligned with the post-Lisbon regime of delegated and implementing acts, by conferring relevant implementing powers on the Commission, which should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council, so that Parliament is properly involved. We cannot forget that Parliament is an institution that represents the people of Europe, so it should have powers to limit the activities of the Commission.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe amending this regulation is welcome and, at the same time, necessary for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for certain types of meat and cereal products. Current legislation and the powers granted to the Commission for adapting the measures aimed at implementing and amending this regulation must be aligned with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon as soon as possible. These powers must take into account both delegated and implementing acts. I also believe Parliament should become more involved in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. At the same time, removing references concerning the Committee procedure is highly important in terms of mirroring modifications to the application of the procedure.

  Adam Bielan (ECR) , in writing. – (PL) Polish farmers constitute a large group of food producers in the European Union. The predominance of agriculture is very clear in my region. Any action intended to ensure favourable regulations concerning trade in agricultural products, including appropriate levels of tariff quotas, is therefore of exceptional importance to me. I think that increased involvement of the European Parliament by including our institution in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts in this area is a desirable approach. I am also in favour of the extension by four months of the deadline for submitting objections to these drafts provisions. Together with my political group, I accept the technical amendments proposed by the Commission and the rapporteur’s position, granting wide powers to the parliamentary Committee on International Trade in this field. I support this report.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted for Mr Moreira’s report on aligning Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 with the regime of delegated acts, as established in Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. No changes are being made to the content or substance of the regulation, as this is merely a technical update.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is necessary to align a share of legislation regulating EU trade policy with the provisions of Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The amendments should cover due involvement of the European Parliament in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts, the prolongation of the period for possible objection to a draft delegated act, limitation of delegation of powers and modified application of written procedure. Committee procedure references concerning the Single CMO Regulation should also be removed and included in this regulation because this would mirror all modifications to the application of written procedure. It would thus also ensure that the right of scrutiny of implementing acts necessary for the administration of the quota arrangements remains within the remit of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday 12 September 2012, I voted in favour of the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Council Regulation opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for high-quality beef, and for pigmeat, poultrymeat, wheat and meslin, and brans, sharps and other residues. I particularly support the idea of the due involvement of the European Parliament in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as it allows for the simplification of procedures, while safeguarding their rigorousness and transparency.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which is aimed at aligning Regulation (EC) No 774/94 with the new system of delegated acts and implementing acts, namely with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This regulation is aimed at opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas of certain meats and cereal-based products. It also confers powers on the Commission to adopt the necessary measures for implementing and amending the regulation.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 on the opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for high-quality beef, and for pig meat, poultry meat, wheat and meslin, and brans, sharps and other residues, is now subject to amendments with the same objective. It is necessary to align EU legislation with the treaties that underlie it in terms of both systematisation and legal security and intelligibility.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Moreira, addresses the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 on the opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for high-quality beef, and for pig meat, poultry meat, wheat and meslin, and brans, sharps and other residues. The proposed amendments, among other measures, require the greater involvement of Parliament in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts, limit the delegation of powers to tacitly extendable five-year periods, prolong the period of objection to draft delegated acts from two to four months and make the written procedure mandatory. I am voting for this report, given that it concerns legal matters aimed at adapting the powers conferred on the Commission in Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 to the post-Lisbon regime of delegated and implementing acts, powers which should now be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The main objective of this report is to bring the aforementioned Council Regulation into line with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The rapporteur has introduced some amendments which limit the powers of the Commission in relation to the delegation of powers, and advocate Parliament’s greater involvement in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. We welcome the provision which ensures that Parliament has a longer period of time to object to a delegated act.

However, this report must still be examined for its deeper meaning, taking into account positions of principle in terms of the TFEU and its provisions on trade policy. Indeed, the Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that trade policy is the exclusive remit of the EU. In other words, the Member States have been denied an essential economic policy instrument. Trade interests are obviously different from country to country, as their respective economies, weaknesses and strengths are different. The overlap between the interests of the strongest and the weakest, in this and other areas, is extremely detrimental to weaker economies, such as that of Portugal. The effects of policies of free trade can be seen in the disruption of major national sectors of production.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the Commission is thus granted the powers to review the quotas mentioned which will lead to better administration of these quotas.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Moreira report is highly technical. The purpose of this report is to adapt this regulation to the changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, in particular in terms of committee procedure. I supported this report during the vote in plenary on 12 September.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. I strongly believe that the European Parliament must be involved in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts and support the prolongation of the period for possible objections to draft delegated acts from two to four months. I understand Mr Moreira’s position concerning the removal of references concerning the committee procedure to the future aligned Single CMO Regulation and the insertion of such provisions directly into this amending regulation because this will ensure that the right of scrutiny of implementing acts necessary for the administration of the quota arrangements mentioned in this regulation remains within the remit of the Committee on International Trade.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I support the rapporteur who urges the removal of references concerning the committee procedure to the future aligned Single CMO Regulation and insertion of such provisions directly into this amending regulation. This will mirror modifications to application of written procedure laid down in Trade Omnibuses. Furthermore, it will ensure that the right of scrutiny of implementing acts necessary for the administration of the quota arrangements referred to in this regulation remains within the remit of the Committee on International Trade.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report proposes giving the Commission the power to change the volume of agricultural quotas, for meat and cereals, in particular, imported into Europe. Given the Commission’s track record of giving in to US blackmail, as in the case of beef quotas, a few months ago, we have reason to doubt its neutrality in the matter. I am voting against, out of distrust.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The vote on the legislative proposal has been postponed. The proposal refers to this report, concerning Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94, which confers powers on the Commission to adopt the necessary implementing measures and amend the regulation, should the volumes and other conditions of quota arrangements be adjusted, in particular by decisions to conclude agreements with third countries. This report advocates that those powers should be aligned with the post-Lisbon regime of delegated and implementing acts, so there is nothing in it to oppose.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Regulation (EC) No 774/94 conferred powers on the Commission to adopt the necessary implementing measures and amend the regulation should the volumes and other conditions of tariff quota arrangements for certain meat and cereal products be adjusted, in particular by decisions to conclude agreements with third countries. These powers now need to be aligned with the post-Lisbon regime of delegated and implementing acts by conferring relevant implementing powers on the Commission and aligning said regulation with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Furthermore, I would stress that the right of scrutiny of the implementing acts needed for the administration of the quota arrangements referred to in this regulation should remain within the remit of the Committee on International Trade. I voted for the proposal.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s proposal seeks to adapt Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 on the opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for certain meat and cereal products to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The aforementioned regulation confers powers on the Commission to adopt the necessary implementing measures and amend the regulation, should the volumes and other conditions of quota arrangements be adjusted, in particular by decisions to conclude agreements with third countries. Those powers should be aligned with the regime, instituted by the Treaty of Lisbon, of delegated and implementing acts. The rapporteur is therefore proposing the greater involvement of Parliament, the limitation of delegation of powers to tacitly extendable five-year periods, the prolongation of the period for possible objection from two to four months and the modification of the application of written procedure. Moreover, he also advocates that the text of the regulation be brought into line with the so-called ‘Trade Omnibus’ regulations.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 deals with the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain meat and grain products. The regulation delegates powers to the European Commission in this area. These powers need to be aligned with the regime of delegated and implementing acts established by the Treaty of Lisbon. Accordingly, I am in favour of the regulation.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this proposal, through which the Commission seeks to adjust the regulation to the new rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding Parliament’s powers in the administration of Community tariff quotas for high-quality beef, and for pigmeat, poultrymeat, wheat and meslin.

Parliament will therefore be jointly involved in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts, the limitation of delegated powers to tacitly extendable five-year periods, the prolongation of the period for possible objections to a draft delegated act from two to four months, and the modified application of the written procedure.

Vital Moreira report (A7-0209/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as it seeks consistency in the legislation on trade. The rapporteur proposes two amendments to the Commission’s proposal which reflect the changes brought about by the two ‘Trade Omnibuses’, in particular in relation to the addition of two new recitals concerning the implementing or delegated acts in the basic legal acts and the participation of Parliament. Moreover, for the three regulations, the Commission’s proposal refers to the Committee procedure providing for the aligned regulation establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets. The rapporteur proposes deleting that reference and inserting a new provision on Committee procedure into each of the amended regulations. This way, the modified application of the written procedure, brought about by the ‘Trade Omnibuses’, can be assured. For all of these reasons, I would once again point out that a more interventionist role on the part of Parliament is always better for the European public and the harmonious development of the EU as a whole.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this proposal aimed at aligning three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU).

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I agree with the alignment of Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey with the regime of delegated acts and implementing acts. I too support the amendments of the rapporteur on the insertion of new recitals on implementing acts and delegated acts and on a greater involvement of the European Parliament during the preparation of delegated acts. I also believe it is relevant to extend the possible prolongation of the period for objection to a delegated act and the period of scrutiny. Moreover, the limitation of the conferral of delegated powers on the Commission is a positive step. I believe the amendments concerned will allow legislation in the field of the common trade policy to be correctly implemented and followed-up.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of this report, which proposes to amend the three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey as regards the delegated and implementing powers to be conferred on the Commission under the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it aims to ensure the consistency of the trade legislation. In order to achieve this changes were brought about by two Trade Omnibuses, i.e. insertion of new recitals on implementing acts/delegated acts into the basic legal acts, involvement of the European Parliament during the preparation of delegated acts, limitation of the conferral of the delegated powers on the Commission, extension of possible prolongation of the period for objection to a draft delegated act along with the period of scrutiny, as well as changes to the modalities of the application of the written procedure. In order to ensure effective application of the written procedure a provision on Committee procedure must be inserted into each of the amended regulations. Under the new regulation the Committee on International Trade in the European Parliament will have the right of scrutiny of such implementing acts, thus ensuring the correct way of following-up the implementation of legislation in the field of the common commercial policy (under Article 207 TFEU).

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of amending the Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey as regards the delegated and implementing powers to be conferred on the Commission. It was important in the first place for these amendments to be in line with the Trade Omnibus, and also to ensure the due involvement of Parliament in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts to facilitate the scrutiny of these acts.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I consider harmonisation and strengthening the consistency of EU regulations to be important.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which is aimed at aligning the three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey, with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts, pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The issue of the scope and definition of delegating and implementing powers to be conferred on the Commission has repeatedly led to a number of different interpretations by Parliament and the Commission. The tension between these bodies is natural, and it is normal for Parliament to require that the Commission’s actions in this area be monitored. Turkey is an important partner of the EU and the amendments to be made to the regulations should not lead to any type of change in the development of this privileged relationship, but should rather put in place legal instruments regulating the import of certain products in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Moreira, concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulations (EC) No 2008/97, (EC) No 779/98 and (EC) No 1506/98 in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey as regards the delegated and implementing powers to be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts, pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The proposed amendments, among other measures, require the greater involvement of Parliament in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts, limit the delegation of powers to tacitly extendable five-year periods, prolong the period of objection to draft delegated acts from two to four months and make the written procedure mandatory. I am voting for this report, given that it concerns legal matters aimed at aligning the aforementioned regulations with the TFEU in relation to delegated and implementing acts, powers which should now be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report, like others on international trade, is primarily aimed at aligning legislation in this area with the changes made by the Treaty of Lisbon, which have an impact in this area. The rapporteur has introduced some amendments which limit the powers of the Commission in relation to the delegation of powers, and advocate Parliament’s greater involvement in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. We welcome the provision which ensures that Parliament has a longer period of time to object to a delegated act. However, we must review this report to determine its deeper meaning, taking into account positions of principle in terms of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and its provisions on trade policy. Indeed, the Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that trade policy is the exclusive remit of the EU. Trade interests are obviously different from country to country, as their respective economies, weaknesses and strengths are different. The overlap between the interests of the strongest and the weakest, in this and other areas, is extremely detrimental to weaker economies, as in the case of Portugal, which is in the hands of the trade interests of the big business of the EU’s major powers, in particular Germany, which is often opposed to the interests of national production.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed the proposal because the main objective of the Commission proposal consisted in aligning three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts. Moreover, the three amended regulations and not the Single CMO Regulation will become basic acts for future implementing acts. Consequently the right of scrutiny concerning such implementing acts will stay with the Committee on International Trade and not the Committee on Agriculture. This will help ensure the consistency of the trade legislation.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) There are many institutions in the European Union, each of them with its defined competence. The division of power among them helps improve the operation and functioning of the EU. When the three pillar structure ceased to exist, it became necessary to reform secondary EU law. The Treaty of Lisbon achieved this, by making a distinction between legislative acts and non-legislative acts. I want to refer to delegated acts and implementing acts, which are classified by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 and Article 291 of the TFEU. Each of these was established for a specific purpose. Delegated acts serve to complement non-essential elements of legislative acts. They are issued by the European Commission under the powers delegated to it pursuant to a legislative act. Such legislative acts should describe the powers granted to the Commission in detail.

I also mentioned implementing acts, which are designed to provide uniform conditions for the implementation of legally binding EU acts. Primary responsibility for the effective implementation of EU law lies with the Member States. However, if uniform conditions for implementation of legally binding EU acts are necessary, those acts shall confer implementing powers on the European Commission or the European Council.

I agree with the proposal, which aims to align three Council regulations on the import of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey to the TFEU.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s report and the proposed amendments to the Commission’s proposal. These reflect the changes brought about by the two Trade Omnibuses: insertion of new recitals on implementing acts/delegated acts into the basic legal acts; limitation of the conferral of the delegated powers on the Commission to the period of five years, tacitly extendable by a period of identical duration; and the extension of possible prolongation of the period for objection to a draft delegated act from two to four months, thereby extending the period of scrutiny from four months (2+2) to six months (2+4). I support the involvement of the European Parliament during the preparation of delegated acts.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this technical report. The objective of the Commission proposal consists in aligning three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU).

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The vote on this legislative proposal has been postponed. In any case, I would stress that I voted against this report, which aligns Council Regulations (EC) No 2008/97, (EC) No 779/98 and (EC) No 1506/98, on imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey, with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Having regard to Council Regulations (EC) Nos 2008/97, 779/98 and 1506/98 on imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey, and in view of the fact that the bulk of the legislation in the field of the common commercial policy is currently being aligned to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by means of two trade ‘omnibuses’, it is now necessary to align these regulations with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU). I voted for the proposal in the hope that the right of scrutiny concerning such implementing acts will stay with the Committee on International Trade and not be passed on to the Committee on Agriculture.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s proposal is aimed at the alignment of the three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey, with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts, pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. For the sake of consistency of the trade legislation, the rapporteur proposes amendments to the Commission proposal which reflect the changes brought about by two ‘Trade Omnibuses’, with the greater involvement of Parliament during the preparation of delegated acts, the limitation of the conferral of the delegated powers on the Commission to a period of five years, tacitly extendable by a period of identical duration, the extension of possible prolongation of the period for objection to a draft delegated act from two to four months, and changing the modalities of the application of the written procedure. For the aforementioned reasons, I voted in favour of the document.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Three regulations governing the import of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey, should be aligned to the system of delegated and implementing acts introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. For this purpose, provisions regarding committee procedures should be added to each of these regulations. This will allow the Committee on International Trade to control the implementing acts based on these regulations. I therefore voted for the regulation.

Vital Moreira recommendation (A7-0211/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as the proposed parallel agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Australia is important as these are agreements on mutual recognition in relation to the conformity assessment of regulated products. In this way, the proposal of this report is for the MRAs to seek to lift technical barriers to trade, while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. The MRA provides, in its main body, for general rules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies, as well as specific rules applicable to the various sectors covered.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the improvement and simplification of the operation of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Australia. This agreement seeks to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. To this end the agreement gives each of its parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. I agree with the agreement’s proposed improvements, including the deletion of the restriction concerning the rules of origin of industrial products so that the MRA applies to all products covered by it, irrespective of their origin. I agree that in order to simplify the operation of the MRA, it is essential to simplify the procedure for the recognition, and suspension of conformity assessment bodies.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I believe the amendment of the Mutual Recognition Agreement with Australia is intended to simplify and improve its functioning. This type of agreement seeks to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding health, safety and the environment. This is why I believe mutual recognition agreements are of paramount importance and their amendment should aim at clarifying and facilitating their operation. They should allow greater flexibility and, at the same time, remove unnecessary restrictions on international trade, facilitating its operation under the best conditions. I welcome the fact that the agreement will apply to all products covered by it, irrespective of their nature or origin. I also support the institutional and procedural amendments.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) enable the conformity assessment of regulated products, giving each of their parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. Their objective is to lift technical barriers to trade, while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. This agreement, which amends the MRA with Australia, has been negotiated by the Commission with the objective of improving and simplifying the functioning of the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. Its amendments are intended to allow greater flexibility in the structure of the sectoral annexes of the MRA, to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, to reduce the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, and to facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. For these reasons, I voted for this recommendation calling on Parliament to approve this agreement.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of this report to amend the Mutual Recognition Agreement with Australia, which was negotiated to improve and simplify its functioning.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I support Mr Moreira’s report on amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia. The agreement was first signed in 1999 and is now being amended and improved by removing certain trade restrictions that have proved unnecessary and reducing the administrative burden related to management of the agreement itself.

Under the agreement, Australia undertakes to test products intended for the EU against the legislation in force in the Union, and in return the EU undertakes to do the same. The purpose of this is to lift technical barriers to trade between our countries, while safeguarding the fundamental principles of health, safety and environmental protection.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is an opportunity to improve the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Australia, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. The amendments will allow greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes, remove restrictions on trade between the parties, reduce the administrative burden related to the MRA and clarify the MRA. The restriction concerning the rules of origin of industrial products should be deleted because only then will the MRA apply to all products covered by it. As the Joint Committee is co-chaired by the parties, all references to the Chair of the Joint Committee must be deleted. It is important to stress that the Joint Committee is empowered to amend the sectoral annexes when these take account of technical progress and other factors. In order to simplify operation of the MRA, it is necessary to simplify the procedure for the recognition, withdrawal of recognition and suspension of conformity assessment bodies.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday 12 September 2012, I voted in favour of amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and Australia. Firstly, this amendment simplifies the functioning of the MRA and, secondly, it removes unnecessary restrictions on trade. I therefore support the decision to delete the provision restricting the application of the MRA to industrial products that originate in the parties according to non-preferential rules of origin.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe that it allows greater flexibility in the structure of the sectoral annexes of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Australia, removes unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, reduces the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, and facilitates and clarifies the operation of the MRA.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. − UKIP supports free trade and especially welcomes reductions in barriers to trade with our commonwealth friends. These reports remove technical barriers to trade and thus make it easier to trade with our commonwealth kith and kin, and thus we can support it.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that the amendment to the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) between the European Union and Australia will enhance trade relations between these two major continents, and will also remove barriers to greater movement of products. On the basis of the same set of arguments that I invoked in my explanation of vote on the MRA with New Zealand, I voted for this recommendation – see my explanation of vote on report A7-0211/2012.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report which will facilitate trade between the European Union and Australia. This offers a really good opportunity to our companies who see in it new business opportunities. Facilitating reciprocal access to our respective markets is a real opportunity for our SMEs. It is up to us to seize this opportunity.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the ‘agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia’, as I believe that these measures will improve and simplify the functioning of the Mutual Recognition Agreement, allowing greater flexibility and removing unnecessary restrictions. The functioning of the agreement will be facilitated and clarified as a result.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Australia is a natural partner of the EU due to its historical and civilisational affinities with Europe, its geostrategic position and its economic potential. Given that Australia is governed by principles and standards that are similar to those of Europe in terms of health, security and the environment, and that trade between both parties should be encouraged and freed of useless restrictions, the entry into force of a mutual recognition agreement in several areas is to be welcomed. I consider that the amendment aimed at greater simplification of trade respects the objective of the conclusion of the agreement, and will open up new opportunities for European products in Australia. I hope that the amendments introduced will meet the purpose for which they are intended.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This document, drafted by Mr Moreira, concerns a draft Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and Australia, amending the mutual recognition agreement (MRA) in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia. The agreement that has now been negotiated by the Commission is aimed at simplifying the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999, the objective of which is for the parties to assess the conformity of regulated products. The amendments that have been made will allow greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes and remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties. Moreover, it will allow the deletion of the restriction concerning the rules of origin of industrial products, which are considered unnecessary, as well as updates to the text in terms of institutional and procedural amendments, withdrawal of recognition and suspension of conformity assessment bodies, and so on, without neglecting matters relating to health, security and the environment. I voted for this recommendation because, besides not having financial implications, it makes a considerable number of improvements to the applicability of the MRA in force.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the conclusion of the agreement amending the agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia. These are agreements on the mutual recognition of the conformity assessment of regulated products. A Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) gives each of its parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. Hence, MRAs seek to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. The MRA with Australia provides, in its main body, for general rules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies, as well as specific rules applicable to the various sectors covered.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this recommendation because I am confident that the agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) will lift technical barriers to trade between the EU and Australia while safeguarding our health, safety and environmental objectives. In 2010, EU exports equalled EUR 26.7 billion while EU imports from Australia were worth EUR 9.8 billion. Trade between our economies had been growing steadily until 2009 when this trend was reversed due to the global economic crisis. For this reason, we need to do everything in our power to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade. It would also be beneficial for both sides if we could reduce the administrative burden related to management of the Agreement.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this proposal. The agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Australia has been negotiated by the Commission with the stated objective of improving and simplifying the functioning of the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. MRAs are agreements on the mutual recognition of conformity assessment of regulated products. An MRA gives each of its parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. Hence, MRAs seek to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. The MRA with Australia provides, in its main body, for general rules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies, as well as specific rules applicable to the various sectors covered (in sectoral annexes).

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of these amendments is to simplify the functioning of the agreement and remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties. The amended Mutual Recognition Agreement will apply to all products falling within its scope, regardless of their origin.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. The amendments made to the main body of the mutual recognition agreement will allow for greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes. Unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties will be removed. Furthermore, the administrative burden related to management of the agreement will be reduced.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur. I voted for this report which seeks to simplify the functioning of the mutual recognition agreement (MRA) with Australia, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. A parallel agreement amending the MRA with New Zealand, which is identical, has also been proposed, and also merits my vote in favour.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Considering that MRAs – agreements on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment of regulated products – give each of their parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export, and considering that the MRA with Australia entered into force on 1 January 1999, there is now a need to improve and simplify the functioning of that agreement. In order to allow greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes, to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, to reduce the administrative burden related to management of the MRA and to facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA, my vote is in favour of the proposal.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this technical amendment to the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand because it will remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, reduce the administrative burden related to management of the MRA and facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. This kind of obstacle of a more technical nature is what we now need to try and remove to facilitate trade rather than those related to tarfiffs.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The agreement amending the mutual recognition agreement (MRA) with Australia has been negotiated with the objective of improving and simplifying the functioning of the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. Its main amendments are intended to allow greater flexibility in the structure of the sectoral annexes of the MRA, to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, to reduce the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, and to facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. I voted in favour of the document for the aforementioned reasons.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on amending the agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia. Mutual recognition agreements seek to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. Mutual recognition agreements with Australia provide for general rules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies, as well as specific rules applicable to the various sectors covered.

I welcome the simplification of the Mutual Recognition Agreement’s operation, resulting in a simpler mutual recognition procedure for conformity assessment. I welcome the removal of rules of origin of industrial products. I also welcome the revision of the Sectoral Annex on Medicinal Products and the Sectoral Annex on Medical Devices in order to take account of developments in technical and administrative practice.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour, because the purpose of the changes is to improve and simplify the implementation of the agreement with Australia. The changes introduced will increase the flexibility of the agreement and abolish unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties. The changes will reduce the administrative burden associated with the implementation of the agreement and also facilitate and clarify its implementation. No financial implications are foreseen as a result of the changes.

Vital Moreira recommendation (A7-0210/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as it concerns important agreements that improve mutual recognition in relation to the conformity assessment of regulated products. It is vital to lift technical barriers to trade, while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of both parties. I support the report because it provides for general rules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies, as well as specific rules applicable to the various sectors covered.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the improvement and simplification of the operation of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with New Zealand. This Agreement seeks to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. To this end the Agreement gives each of its parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. I agree with the agreement’s proposed improvements, including the deletion of the restriction concerning the rules of origin of industrial products so that the MRA applies to all products covered by it, irrespective of their origin.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I support the improvement and simplification of the functioning of the mutual recognition agreements. In my opinion, all unnecessary barriers to international trade should be removed as soon as possible. At the same time, I believe health, the environment and safety are of particular importance in this context and need to be taken into account and safeguarded as effectively as possible. The amendment of the agreements will allow greater flexibility and reduce the administrative burden related to their management. At the same time, this adjustment seeks to facilitate and clarify the operation of the agreement. I would also like to point out that technical progress and the updates or changes to legislation need to be taken into account throughout this process.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) enable the conformity assessment of regulated products, giving each of its parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. Their objective is to lift technical barriers to trade, while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. This agreement, which amends the MRA with New Zealand, has been negotiated by the Commission with the objective of improving and simplifying the functioning of the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. Its amendments are intended to allow greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes, to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, to reduce the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, and to facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. For these reasons, I voted for this recommendation calling on Parliament to approve this agreement.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of this report, which, as in the case of Australia, amends the agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support Mr Moreira’s report on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the EU and New Zealand. It aims to give both parties the authority to test products intended for export according to reciprocal rules. Without a doubt, trade and market competitiveness both in the Member States and in New Zealand will benefit from it.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is an opportunity to improve the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with New Zealand, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. The amendments will allow greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes, remove restrictions on trade between the parties, reduce the administrative burden related to the MRA and simplify and clarify the MRA. In order to apply the MRA to all products covered by it, irrespective of their origin, the unnecessary restriction concerning the rules of origin of industrial products should be deleted. It is worth mentioning that as the Joint Committee is co-chaired by the parties, all references to the Chair of the Joint Committee must be deleted. It is important to stress that the Joint Committee is empowered to amend the sectoral annexes when these take account of technical progress and other factors. It is also necessary to simplify the procedure for the recognition, withdrawal of recognition and suspension of conformity assessment bodies because only then with the operation of the MRA be simplified.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday 12 September 2012, I voted in favour of amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand. The purpose of this amendment is to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, to simplify the functioning of the MRA, but also to reduce the administrative burden related to management of the MRA.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I consider that it simplifies the functioning of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with New Zealand, lifts technical barriers to trade, while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of both parties, allows greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes of the MRA, removes unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, reduces the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, and facilitates and clarifies the operation of the MRA.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The European Union must be open not only to regions which are geographically close, but also to countries from the more remote corners of the globe. For this reason, a number of bilateral agreements have been signed between the EU and third countries. The agreement with New Zealand provides an example of effective cooperation. The abolition of trade barriers is a good solution and opens up new opportunities for EU trade. Furthermore, the new agreement does not entail any additional financial costs for the EU. This is a positive solution which opens up many opportunities to EU Member States.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) are agreements on mutual recognition in relation to the conformity assessment of regulated products. These agreements give each of the signatory parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. These MRAs are of considerable importance for the framework and stability of trade relations between the EU and New Zealand, as they seek to remove technical barriers to trade, while safeguarding the public health, safety and environmental objectives of both parties. This revision of the MRA with New Zealand allows greater flexibility in the implementation of the agreements by both parties, reduces the administrative burden related to management of the agreements, and facilitates and clarifies the operation of the MRA. I voted for this recommendation, as I know that this revision of the agreement will contribute towards strengthening good trade relations with a country that, although on the other side of the world, is historically and culturally linked to our continent.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report which will facilitate trade between the European Union and New Zealand. This provides a really good opportunity for our companies which see in it new business opportunities. Facilitating reciprocal access to our respective markets is a real opportunity for our SMEs. It is up to us to seize this opportunity.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the ‘agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and New Zealand’, as it seeks to improve and simplify the functioning of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA), allowing greater flexibility, removing unnecessary restrictions and facilitating the operation of the MRA.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As in the case of Australia, the amendment to the Mutual Recognition Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand seeks to enhance trade relations between these two parties and to remove unnecessary barriers to the movement of products. I hope that these amendments will allow this objective to be achieved and that, despite the distance, the closeness of the European Union and New Zealand in terms of their civilisation and their common interests will bring them increasingly closer together. All of us will benefit from this greater closeness.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This document, drafted by Mr Moreira, concerns a draft Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and New Zealand, amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and New Zealand. The agreement that has now been negotiated by the Commission is aimed at simplifying the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999, the objective of which is for the parties to assess the conformity of regulated products. The amendments that have been made will allow greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes and remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties. Moreover, it will allow the deletion of the restriction concerning the rules of origin of industrial products, which are considered unnecessary, as well as updates to the text in terms of institutional and procedural amendments, withdrawal of recognition and suspension of conformity assessment bodies, and so on, without neglecting matters relating to health, security and the environment. I voted for this recommendation because, besides not having financial implications, it makes a considerable number of improvements to the applicability of the MRA in force.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand. Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) are agreements on the mutual recognition of the conformity assessment of regulated products. An MRA gives each of its parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. Hence, MRAs seek to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this recommendation. The EU remains an important trading partner for New Zealand. Our exports are mainly cars, medicaments, machinery, telecommunication equipment, transport material, and chemicals and in 2010 EU goods exports to New Zealand amounted to EUR 2.7 billon. Goods imports from New Zealand equalled EUR 2.8 billion. Because of the global recession, we must place particular emphasis on improving existing agreements in order to foster our trade. I voted in favour of this recommendation because I am confident that the agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) will lift technical barriers to trade between the EU and New Zealand while safeguarding our objectives in terms of health, environment, and safety.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this agreement with New Zealand. A parallel agreement amending the MRA with Australia, which is identical, has also been proposed.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of these amendments is to simply the functioning of the agreement and to allow greater flexibility in the sectoral annexes. It also removes unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties as well as the administrative burden.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the favourable report by the Committee on International Trade, I voted for this legislative resolution by Parliament on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and New Zealand, amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Alongside the proposal to amend the agreement on mutual recognition (MRA) with Australia, there has been a proposal to change the MRA with New Zealand, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. Considering that MRAs are agreements on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment of regulated products, giving each party the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export, and hoping for greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes, removing unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, and reducing the administrative burden related to the management of the agreement, I express my vote in favour of the proposal.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this technical amendment to the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand because it will remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, reduce the administrative burden related to management of the MRA and facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. This kind of obstacle of a more technical nature is what we now need to try and remove to facilitate trade rather than those related to tariffs.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this Agreement. It is the next logical step to the first Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) entered into with New Zealand. It aims to simplify the functioning of the MRA, which came into force on 1 January 1999. For example, this text removes the technical barriers to trade while specifying the objectives of each party in the areas of health, safety and the environment.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with New Zealand has been negotiated with the objective of improving and simplifying the functioning of the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. Its main amendments are intended to allow greater flexibility in the structure of the sectoral annexes of the MRA, to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, to reduce the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, and to facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. I voted in favour of the document for the aforementioned reasons.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand amending the agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand. The draft agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with New Zealand has been negotiated by the Commission with the stated objective to improve and simplify the functioning of the MRA.

MRAs seek to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. The MRA with New Zealand provides, in its main body, for general rules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies. Amendments to the MRA are intended to allow greater structure flexibility, remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, reduce the administrative burden and facilitate and clarify the operation of the agreement. It is necessary to establish a simpler procedure for the recognition, withdrawal of recognition and suspension of conformity assessment bodies.

Pat the Cope Gallagher report (A7-0146/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, primarily for the sake of justice, as I do not consider it to be fair that while there are regions like mine, which practise sustainable fishing, there are at the same time other Member States that do not meet the same requirements and may even put the stocks of other European marine regions at risk. Any flagrant lack of willingness to comply with the agreed measures must be countered by strong action. As the EU is a lucrative market of destination for fisheries products, it has a particular responsibility in ensuring sustainable fishing and the respect of obligations deriving from the common management of straddling and migratory stocks. It is therefore necessary to provide the EU with the effective means to take action against any State unwilling to assume such a responsibility, or not cooperating in the adoption and implementation of agreed management measures, in order to disincentivise unsustainable fishing As a result, I unreservedly support the Commission’s proposal to use trade and other types of measures in situations like the ones described, and also call for an unmistakeable political message, including a clearer-cut approach and strong, effective measures, to be sent out.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on certain measures in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing. Due to repeated infringements of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, as well as action taken in violation of requirements for states to cooperate in the management of migratory fish stocks, it is essential to adopt a legal instrument according to which the EU could take action against states that are unwilling to cooperate. In order to mitigate the negative impact on fish stocks Member States need to impose appropriate sanctions and I therefore welcome the proposals set out on imposing quantitative restrictions on imports into the EU of fishery products on states allowing non-sustainable fishing. The export of fishing vessels or fishing equipment to such countries should also be prohibited, as should the conclusion of private trade agreements by citizens of such countries with other countries.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour because this regulation will help to achieve the aim of cooperation between states in order to establish sustainable fishing practices, and will provide the tools to impose sanctions on those that overexploit stocks and do not help conserve them.

I agree, therefore, on the need to monitor Iceland and the Faroe Islands, because of their mackerel fishing activities. Through this amendment, they will not be allowed use EU ports to offload their catches, and the same amendment will also mean imports are prohibited.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I have voted in favour of Mr Gallagher’s report because I agree with imposing stricter intervention measures against third countries that repeatedly violate the agreements on non-sustainable fishing practices, which consequently cause great damage to transnational fish stocks, namely the stocks ‘of common interest’. I therefore agree with the restrictions suggested in this report on the quantity of allowed importations, the use of European ports and the prohibition of joint fishing ventures between vessels flying the flag of countries authorising non-sustainable fishing and vessels of the Member States.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is essential to adopt a legal instrument according to which the EU could take effective action against states unwilling to cooperate to dissuade unsustainable fishing in the adoption and implementation of agreed management measures, and which repeatedly infringe the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and also take unilateral actions in disregard of established requirements. Any case of infringement must be met with firm action, as it will otherwise adversely affect EU fisheries and lead to a considerable depletion of fish stocks. An unmistakeable political message, including a clear approach and effective measures, is therefore essential.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) According to the 2010 Food and Agriculture Organisation report, the average per capita fish consumption has doubled since the 1960s. Fish is the primary raw material for the food industry in terms of trade volume, worth an estimated USD 102 billion in 2008.

It is therefore not surprising that a portion of fish stocks is under constant threat of impoverishment and that the issue of environmental and food balance demands the greatest sense of responsibility and concrete measures to combat illegal fishing, According to some environmental organizations, in fact, its turnover exceeds 25% of the value of the global market.

As the primary stakeholder in this market, the EU has a duty (as a matter of self-protection and fairness) to leverage markets in order to encourage less sensitive countries to meet the stock management requirements established in the conventions. I therefore support the report.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) When the European Commission wants to impose sanctions on a country for unsustainable fishing practises, it 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 these countries. I supported this report because it takes up this important idea for our Committee on Development specifying that the measures should not be unjustified, or even discriminatory.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe that the EU has a particular responsibility in ensuring sustainable fishing and the respect of obligations deriving from the common management of straddling and migratory stocks.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. − (IT) The management of highly migratory fish stocks calls for the constant cooperation and direct consultation among the countries whose fleets exploit such stocks, avoiding the risk of unilateral action that could be potentially harmful to long-term resource sustainability. Moreover, the EU has the responsibility to ensure that this cooperation requirement is respected and that Member States do not take unilateral action in disregard of the general interest in the conservation of the marine ecosystem. However, beside effective measures, in order to fulfil this task it is necessary to endow the EU with appropriate monitoring tools. As with other sectors, unbridled competition among the Member States may have adverse consequences. I have thus chosen to support the measures in the directive, in particular those designed to impose quantitative restrictions on EU fish imports, in cases where the fish is caught from stocks of common interest under the supervision of a third country. Similarly, I welcome the introduction of tools that can ensure that such measures are effective, proportionate and compatible with international legislation, as well as meeting environmental, commercial, economic and social standards.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. − I voted for this report in the hope that the sanctions that this report will enable will help to bring an end to the disgraceful situation that is ongoing between the EU, Iceland and the Faroe Islands over the issue of the mackerel catch. The EU has in its reform of the CFP spent the past three years talking about sustainable fishing and the rebuilding of fish stocks. Mackerel is a very sustainable stock, in fact it was so well managed that it was awarded accreditation for sustainable management. Following the unilateral hike in the mackerel catch by Iceland and the Faroe Islands the stock has been overfished and has had its accreditation suspended and we are now in danger of destroying the fishery and the industry around it. All reasonable attempts at mediation over the past two years have simply failed. We need to be able to employ reasonable sanctions against those who ignore negotiations. I hope this report will strengthen the Commission’s hand and I will be monitoring the Commission’s actions closely following today’s vote.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘measures in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks’, as I believe that it is necessary to provide the EU with effective means to take action against any State that does not adopt the agreed management measures, in order to disincentivise the continuation of such unsustainable fishing.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The organisation and functioning of markets of fisheries and aquaculture products has implications both for the sustainability of fisheries resources and marine ecosystems, in terms of public health and food security for the public. The new provisions seek to strengthen the role of the organisations of producers and relax marketing standards for fresh produce. The current consumer information requirements for fresh produce – comprising the trade name, the scientific name, an indication of the place of capture or production, an indication as to whether it was caught or farmed, and a mention of thawing, if necessary – are considered complete if they indicate the date of capture or production, or the words ‘fresh’ or ‘frozen’.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We are all aware that the planet’s resources are not inexhaustible. This is all the more pertinent when we are discussing resources that are directly linked to food. The increase in the global population requires ever greater resources, and we cannot allow ecosystems to be squandered. This report, drafted by Pat the Cope Gallagher, addresses the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of certain measures in relation to countries that practise or allow non-sustainable fishing, thus jeopardising the conservation of fish stocks. At issue is the lack of a sustainable fisheries policy, in particular in relation to the fishing of mackerel. What has happened in Iceland, and not only there, is unacceptable – its catches have been unilaterally increased. There needs to be an agreement among the Member States as each State cannot simply do what it likes. I voted for the rapporteur’s proposals as I agree that fishing should be sustainable, both inside and outside the EU.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement require that coastal states and states whose fleets carry out fishing of stocks in adjacent high sea areas cooperate with the responsible management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, and the stocks found in adjacent exclusive economic zones, in order to ensure their long-term sustainability, whether through direct mutual consultation or through the regional fisheries management organisations. As the EU is a lucrative market of destination for fisheries products, it has a particular responsibility in ensuring that this obligation to cooperate is respected. This proposal aims to establish a rapid and effective mechanism that allows the measures related to trade and other types of measures to be used for those states that fail to meet their obligations. We support the rapporteur’s proposals. The trade measures to be implemented should not be confined to imports of ‘stocks of common interest’ and ‘associated species’, but should apply to all imports of fish and fisheries products of all species originating from countries that have agreed to avoid non-sustainable fishing activities.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − The EU’s controversial policy of allowing dead fish caught over-quota to be thrown back in the sea, so-called fish discards, is finally being brought to an end through a number of reforms to its common fisheries policy. However, unsustainable fishing practices are likely to continue outside the EU. This report therefore calls for the EU to use sanctions against countries who fish unsustainably on fish stocks that are of importance to the EU. This would allow it to prohibit imports of fish that have been caught unsustainably. Given the recent actions taken by Iceland and the Faroe Islands, where they have set themselves mackerel quotas that are way above their historical levels, I can add my support to this proposal.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of 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. The document is aimed at imposing restrictions on the use of Union ports by fishing vessels flying the flag of a country allowing non-sustainable fishing, but such restrictions shall not apply in cases of force majeure or distress for services strictly necessary to remedy those situations. This new regulation will therefore help to encourage and establish sustainable and responsible fishing internationally and it is also closely linked to the regulation on preventing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement require coastal States and States whose fleets fish on adjacent high seas to cooperate in managing responsibly all stocks in order to ensure their long-term sustainability. Mr Gallagher’s report was adopted in plenary on 12 September and I welcome this. It is in response to massive overfishing of mackerel in Iceland and the Faroe Islands. In view of repeated violations, the EU decided to develop a new range of measures to discourage the continuation of unsustainable fishing.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the European Union should have the means to take appropriate measures against those countries that fish unsustainably. This should even include the ability to impose quantitative restrictions on imports of fish into the EU from these countries. When imposing these restrictions, the Commission should evaluate environmental, trade, economic and social effects of the measures to ensure that they are proportionate and compatible with international trade. Parliament should be informed of this evaluation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this proposal. The aim of which is for a Commission regulation is to promote cooperation between States in order to establish truly sustainable fishing practices which conserve fish stocks and ensure their optimal use. To achieve this, the European Union needs to have suitable and effective tools so it can impose sanctions on States which are responsible for measures and practices that lead to over-exploitation of stocks or which do not cooperate in good faith by taking agreed management measures.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on measures in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing. In response to the overfishing of stocks, in particular mackerel, in the North East Atlantic, this report aims to adopt trade sanctions against States that do not engage in responsible management of stocks, thus jeopardising their long-term sustainability.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Repeated violations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement call for a proper legal tool allowing the EU to react to uncooperative behaviour by the States concerned. I fully agree with the rapporteur on this point and, therefore, voted in favour of this report.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report proposes taking drastic measures to enforce the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. It points out that these measures should not be taken in a discriminatory or arbitrary way. Although I do not trust that the Commission is neutral in this matter, I have voted for this text, in support of its core idea.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report, but I think Parliament should have been more persistent in calling for firm action. The EU has a great responsibility not only in terms of ensuring sustainable fishing, but also in terms of protecting European fishermen who are subject to strict and costly rules. European fishermen are seriously disadvantaged by the unfair competition from fishermen in countries that systematically refuse to comply with any rule.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The responsible management and sustainable use of fisheries resources should be mandatory for the EU and all of its Member States. The protection and conservation of fish stocks play a vital role in this context. The EU has a particular responsibility in ensuring sustainable fishing and the respect of obligations deriving from the common management of straddling and migratory fish stocks. It is therefore necessary to provide the EU with the effective means to take action against any Member States that are not cooperating in the adoption and implementation of the agreed management measures, in order to disincentivise irresponsible and unsustainable fishing activities. I voted for this report on the adoption of measures in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing, as I agree with it for the aforementioned reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Repeated infringements of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, as well as unilateral actions in disregard of cooperation requirements imposed by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) upon coastal states for the responsible management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, call for a proper legal tool allowing the EU to react to uncooperative behaviour by the States concerned. I stress the EU's responsibility in ensuring sustainable fishing and respect for the obligations arising from the joint management of straddling and migratory fish stocks and, therefore, the importance of providing the EU with effective means to take action against any state unwilling to assume such a responsibility, and I vote in favour of the proposal.

  Maurice Ponga (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development on Mr Gallagher’s report, I thought it was important to point out that when the European Commission wants to impose sanctions on a country for unsustainable fishing practices, it should 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 these countries. 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.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today, during the sitting in Strasbourg, we voted on Mr Gallagher’s report.

The regulation adopted allows for the use of trade sanctions against third countries allowing non-sustainable fishing and against fishery products deriving from stocks of common interest. These measures should discourage over-exploitation of certain fish species in the North Atlantic.

Although the regulation may be used against third countries, the situation in the North Atlantic is also in our interest. Iceland has unilaterally increased its mackerel catch from 363 tonnes in 2005 to 147 000 tonnes in 2012. The Faroe Islands’ mackerel quotas increased from 27 830 tonnes in 2009 to 149 000 tonnes in 2012.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. 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 Atlantic.

Following changes in the migration route of mackerel, first Iceland and then the Faroes have asserted that the stock comes into their waters and so are claiming a quota. The EU, the largest fisher of the stock, is willing in principle to agree to this, but negotiations have stalled for several years over the actual amount. As a result, mackerel is being severely over-fished because the EU and Norway maintain their historical quotas and Iceland and the Faroes have declared large unilateral quotas. Total catches thus far exceed the scientific advice.

The EU’s room for manoeuvre is limited, especially since most of the Commission and the CSL do not consider fish important enough to derail the accession negotiations with Iceland. Virtually all it can do is to prohibit landings of mackerel by Iceland-flagged vessels in EU ports, but that amounts to almost nothing, as alternative ways into the EU are easily available.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I have voted in favour of this document because I believe in the need for greater powers to the Commission in order to ban the import into the EU of fish from over-exploited stocks.

Through the new regulation it will be possible to discourage the over-exploitation of fish such as mackerel, to the detriment particularly of Iceland and the Faroe Islands. It will be now necessary to carry out a comprehensive reform of our fishing policy in order to make it more environmentally sustainable.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report is at long last a response to those third countries bordering the Mediterranean and other seas that continue to violate fish stocks agreements and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It is out of the question to continue to harass European fishermen with rules and restrictions that both reduce their incomes and force Member States to support the fleets that are harmed when neighbouring countries of ours do not obey the rules and fish unsustainably.

Hence, banning imports of fish from third countries that behave badly will protect our fishermen and deter the ones who break the rules.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Gallagher’s report, because it proposes measures to strengthen the effectiveness of the EU in applying agreed fishery management measures in order to create incentives for sustainable fisheries.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted totally in favour of this text. It is important that the EU has an appropriate legal instrument enabling it to react to the lack of cooperation of States that insist on violating the rules on quotas, for example, thereby jeopardising our future. Highly dissuasive sanctions should also be provided against such offenders.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU should have an appropriate legal instrument that allows it to react to the behaviour of Member States that are not cooperating with the standards set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, as well as the requirements imposed by the regional fisheries management organisations for the responsible management of fish stocks. The EU has a particular responsibility in ensuring sustainable fishing and the respect of obligations deriving from the common management of straddling and migratory stocks. It should therefore be provided with effective means to take action. Such measures should apply to all imports of fish and fisheries products of all species originating from countries that have agreed to avoid non-sustainable fishing activities.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on measures taken for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing. The content of this report is crucial, as it seeks to ensure fair competition between European fishermen and third countries. Faced with an ambitious European legislation to protect fish stocks, we must be given a guarantee that our fishing activity is not relocatable at lower environmental costs. This report mentions the option to restrict imports of fishery products originating from countries allowing non-sustainable fishing, to restrict the provision of port services to vessels flying the flag of those countries or to prevent Union fishing vessels from fishing the stock of common interest under the responsibility of the country allowing non-sustainable fishing. However, I note with regret that the report is entirely conditional, so I hope the European Commission will be quick to make a legally binding proposal on this matter.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on certain measures in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks. This regulation lays down a framework for the adoption of certain measures regarding the fisheries-related activities and policies of third countries with the aim of ensuring the long-term conservation of fish stocks of common interest between the European Union and those third countries. The measures applicable to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing should be proportionate to the objectives pursued and compatible with the obligations imposed by international agreements to which the Union is a party and any other relevant norms of international law.

I think it is necessary to impose quantitative restrictions to importations of fish of any associated species and fishery products made of or containing such fish, when caught while conducting fishing activities on the stock of common interest under the control of countries allowing non-sustainable fishing. To ensure that measures are sustainable and environmentally sound, effective, proportionate and compatible with international rules, the Commission must evaluate the environmental, trade, economic and social effects of those measures in the short and long terms and the administrative burden associated with their implementation.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of this important resolution, which will allow the Commission to take action against countries who fail to cooperate with the EU in its pursuit of preserving sustainable fish stocks. This is a particular necessity in light of the current dispute over the overfishing of mackerel in the North East Atlantic, and will empower the EU to ban imports of fish originating from stocks it considers to have been fished in an unsustainable manner. At a time when many species are under threat, it is imperative that we take this opportunity to work towards the common goal of preserving fish stocks for the future.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − In the past repeated infringements of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement took place. The European Union is responsible for ensuring sustainable fishing, and therefore an appropriate legal rule is needed to give the EU the ability to react to uncooperative behaviour by States.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − This is an important piece of legislation as it will allow the EU to impose sanctions on countries that fish unsustainably on fish stocks that are important to the EU. The EU will now be able to prohibit imports of fish that it considers to have been fished unsustainably by the exporting country. Certain states have so far been unwilling to enact internationally agreed measures to preserve fish stocks but, as a major market for fish products, the EU is well placed to challenge them. This legislation will enable us to do that.

Struan Stevenson report (A7-0217/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I believe that the reformed common fisheries policy should strengthen producer organisations so that they can play a more significant role in the current management of fisheries under a more regionalised system. The creation of transnational producer organisations should be encouraged, with the aim of establishing fair conditions for all stakeholders in the fisheries sector. The future Common Market Organisation must also make a positive contribution towards the dynamic development of the EU aquaculture sector in order to better respond to the increase in demand for fish in the context of the reduction in wild fish stocks. The use of modern technology to improve market intelligence should be promoted within the framework of the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and maritime affairs policy. The proposed mechanism for intervening in the EU market is limited to a single storage system. However, any system that interferes with the free market should be treated with great care and should be applied on a cooperative basis, involving all of the producer organisations and allowing as much flexibility as possible, while protecting the interests of marine and island regions that are heavily dependent on fisheries, in particular the outermost regions.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Whilst there are certainly some positive aspects to this report, I have abstained on the final vote. The CFP must have small fishing industries at its heart and not become a tool of big business. Whilst addressing some important concerns, such as that of discards, I believe that there should be more of an emphasis on small communities and ensuring the future of the sector and coastal communities.

  Marta Andreasen (EFD), in writing. − I voted against this proposal and legislative resolution because I believe the common fisheries policy cannot be reformed, least of all by its authors (the Commission). It has caused such damage to the industry and to fish that it is irreformable. I believe that power on this policy, as on others, should be returned to the Member States.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products. Given the objectives of the reform of the common fisheries policy and in order to promote sustainable productive activities, organisations’ powers should be reviewed. I welcome the proposals to increase the involvement of producer organisations in fisheries management, to strengthen their economic viability and promote the setting up of transnational producer organisations. The labelling of fishery products is another key issue in this report. It is very important to ensure and increase consumer awareness of fishery products. Consumers must receive comprehensive information on the fishery product they buy and the date of landing should therefore be indicated and sustainable fishing practices should be rewarded with an EU eco-label.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The common organisation of the market in fisheries and aquaculture products also implies fixing a guide price before every fishing season, based on the average prices on wholesale markets and in relevant ports during the last three seasons and adjusted to match the production and demand trends, as well as the requirements for ensuring market stability, supporting the income of producers and protecting consumer interests.

A second Community price, that of withdrawal from the market of products that cannot be sold at a higher or at least the same price, is set according to the quality of the fish, but it should be the equivalent of 70 to 90% of the guide price. Within this range, producer organisations themselves can set withdrawal price levels below which they will not sell the products provided by their members, in which case the overstocks will be withdrawn from the market and the producers will be paid an indemnity from the intervention fund set up by producer organisations, consisting of producers’ contributions established according to the quantities offered by each producer for sale.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 11 September 2012, I voted in favour of 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. This proposal bodes well: it is important to strengthen the role of producer organisations in managing the production and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products and to involve them as much as possible in the economic regulation of their industry. In addition, I support the desire to have more comprehensive labelling for the consumer: the date of catch or production will now be mentioned.

  John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark and William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. − UKIP abstained on the final vote of this report. Although there are elements to CFP reform which will give a small bit of relief to the fishing industry – and any changes to the current disastrous CFP rules is a step forward for the industry which the EU itself has destroyed – the only way we can save our stocks and fishing industry is to scrap the CFP altogether and repatriate it back to national governments accountable by the ballot box. The EU has no democratic mandate to create law in the UK and we cannot legitimise the process. UKIP did support amendments which decentralised power back to Member States and those which would cut red tape and costs to our fishing industry.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe that it is vital to strengthen producer organisations and make them international, so that they can counteract the power of retailers and effectively ensure realistic prices for catches landed by their members.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The report is one of the cornerstones of the reform of the common fisheries policy in that it increases the sector’s competitiveness, particularly for producers. It also includes aspects of prime importance for the health and confidence of consumers in the sector. In this respect, safeguarding the interests of consumers and satisfying their demands for clarity and transparency should be the goal of our common policies, because they can become a way of encouraging people to spend. This is all the more important during a slump in sales, when all the indicators show that people tend to purchase goods in a more conscious and informed way, which means they look for quality. That is why we are firmly convinced that the product packaging should show not the date when the fish were landed but the date on which they were actually caught. The landing date, however, which is supported by the moderates and conservatives, is not only misleading for the consumer but also unduly favours large fleets that are able to stay at sea for several days over smaller vessels that can only stay at sea for a few hours. Once again, we would have expected a more rational attitude from the moderates, who seem to have given in to the interests of the larger groups.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the first place, I would like to point out the importance of this own-initiative report, as it reflects Parliament’s opinion on the review of the common fisheries policy, which is currently under way. Indeed, it is expected that a vote on the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reform of the common fisheries policy will only be held next November in the Commission. However, the method of presenting ‘preliminary reports’, although it is more complex and potentially longer, seems to me to be sufficiently effective in a post-Lisbon Europe, where the search for consensus within and among institutions has become crucial in order for legislative documents to actually see the light of day within a reasonable timeframe. Having said that, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work that he has carried out, and I wish my colleague Ms Rodust, the rapporteur for the joint regulation, the best of luck with the complex piece of work that she has in her hands. As a personal note on this reform, although it does not form part of the Committee on Fisheries, I would simply like to highlight the absolute importance of pursuing the objective of achieving balance between the three dimensions of the common fisheries policy, namely its social, environmental and economic aspects, as well as the maintenance of support for fleet renewal and the pursuit of a more regionalised model for the management of the common fisheries policy.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the ‘common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products’, as I believe that it is important that the future Common Market Organisation (CMO) make a positive contribution to the dynamic development of the EU aquaculture sector, under the common fisheries policy. This will result in a better response on the part of the CMO to the increasing demand for fish in a context of declining wild fish stocks. Finally, it is vital to ensure that fair conditions are maintained between fisheries products from the EU and products imported from countries outside the EU.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) For the European Union, and especially for a country like Portugal that has a calling to the sea and to fishing, as well as large-scale fishing and canning industries, it is essential to maintain fishing as a viable and sustainable economic activity. Portugal needs fishing and, therefore, needs the sea to remain able to provide us with fish and for species to remain able to reproduce. It therefore seems clear to me that there should be an appropriate legal instrument to avoid behaviour that will result in a considerable depletion of fish stocks, with notable losses to fisheries activity within the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As a result of their environmental awareness, European citizens are discerning consumers who know their rights. For this reason, it is essential that the EU adopt measures that meet their marketing standards in this sector. This report, by Mr Stevenson, concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products. In the first place, particular attention should be given to the information provided to the consumer, through clear and simple yet informative labelling. The consumer should know the origin of the product, the date on which it was caught, thawing information, chains of supply and whether its capture complied with sustainable fishing practices. Secondly, producer organisations should be supported and sustainable fishing practices should be commended. Moreover, it is necessary to promote sustainable management of fisheries resources, avoiding the capture of young species and their subsequent return to the marine environment. Last but by no means least, fishermen should be assured a fair income, which should be supported by the stabilisation of stocks with a higher degree of reliability.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The current common organisation of the markets (CMO) in fishery and aquaculture products is far from guaranteeing the stability of these markets and a fair income for producers. In this context, a profound and ambitious reform of the CMO is required, which strengthens public intervention and market regulation instruments, to guarantee incomes in the sector, ensure market stability, improve the marketing of fishery products and increase their added value, by increasing the first-sale price of fish. This report points towards a weakening of the current CMO by dismantling some of the (few) remaining regulatory instruments. The objective is growing liberalisation and market orientation. Given the current state of the sector, this path will prove disastrous for countless fleet segments, particularly for small-scale fishing fleets. We regret that many of the proposals we tabled were rejected, such as: adoption of measures to increase the first-sale price of fish, inter alia by implementing maximum intermediation margins along the sector’s value chain; and establishment of a ‘management option’ which enables Member States to continue making key decisions (now entrusted to producer organisations) at national government level. Obviously, we voted against this report.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − This report forms part of the EU’s legislative proposals to reform its common fisheries policy. By encouraging greater decentralisation of fisheries policy, through its regionalisation proposals, this report shall bring an end to Brussels’ flawed micromanagement of our fish stocks. This report specifically looks at the role of producer organisations and their ability to counteract the power of big retailers, whose monopoly has helped to contribute to the over-fishing of our stocks. By empowering producer organisations, we will encourage sustainable practices. Producer organisations will also be encouraged to promote an end to fish discards through using selective gear, and any financial reward for landing fish caught over-quota will be kept at a level that disincentivises a new market for by-catch. Furthermore, new labelling measures will help consumers to be better informed, allowing them to vote with their feet when it comes to sustainable fishing. This report is therefore to be strongly welcomed.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday, 12 September 2012, Parliament was asked to vote on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, which is currently being reformed. The European fisheries policy is an important issue for France as it is sensitive to the vagaries that affect French fishermen. In Parliament, members of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) have had to fight with MEPs of other nationalities, sometimes even with members of their own political group, whose vision of fishing differs greatly from their own. However, the position adopted by Parliament does meet our expectations. Parliament calls for the introduction of a single and public European eco-label for fishery and aquaculture products by 2015, which will enable consumers to be better informed about what they are eating. Consumers must be provided with information about the catch area, the trade name of the product, the date of landing, the term ‘defrosted’ if the product is placed on sale as fresh goods. In addition, Parliament recommends strengthening the role of producer organisations so that they contribute to market stability and price regulation.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products. The future common organisation of the market (CMO) in fishery and aquaculture products must also contribute positively to a dynamic development of the EU aquaculture sector, in order to better meet the growing European demand for fish against a background of declining wild fish stocks. Aquaculture producer organisations should also be given access to a range of measures to help promotion and communication actions at national and international levels and to give added value to their members.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Struan Stevenson’s report was adopted by a large majority: 620 votes for, 27 against and 27 abstentions. The CMO (Common Market Organisation) is the first component of the common fisheries policy. The provisions of this report include, in particular, strengthening the role of producer organisations and relaxing the rules for the marketing of fresh products.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report since, among other things, it helps clarify the necessary information that must be given to the consumer on fisheries products, introduces the requirement for the Commission to develop an EU wide eco-label for sustainable fishery products and creates a new regional advisory council for the outermost regions. I support efforts to reward sustainable fishing practices with an EU eco-label. For this reason, the Commission should establish minimum rules for eco-labelling and possibly introduce its own eco-label, to make it more recognisable and acceptable to the sector and to the public. It is important for consumers to be able to make an informed choice and they should be clear about which fisheries products have been frozen and defrosted, particularly with regard to ‘fresh fish’ products.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Stevenson’s report because I am firmly convinced that greater market-oriented efficiency of the common organisation and of producer organisations in the fisheries and aquaculture sector will result in a competitive advantage. The aims of the common fisheries policy (CFP) seek to protect the environment better by means of effective regulation in that area. As the report points out, however, it is also crucial to take account of the operators in the sector and the effects on their livelihoods, so as not to allow the new regulations to stifle entrepreneurship and the operators’ ability to compete in the market. I also agree with the initiative to secure greater consultation between transnational producer organisations that share the same commercial characteristics and the same needs. These are the lines along which we should be working, not least when drafting the CFP, although we must also bear in mind the specific features of individual fishing areas.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In devising the future common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products, I think producer organisations should play the main role, as they are the key actors responsible for the appropriate application of the common fisheries policy and the common market organisation. Therefore, my recommendation to the Commission is to take action to ensure that these organisations have well-defined objectives and carry out only sustainable fishing and aquaculture activities.

Moreover, we must make sure that producer organisations will take into account the requirements imposed by the EU in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, with particular focus on small-scale fisheries. In this way, we will make a positive contribution to the dynamic development of the EU’s aquaculture sector and will be able to cope with the growing market demand for fish against the global background of declining fish stocks.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which among other things states that sustainable fishing practices should be rewarded with an EU eco-label.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Fishing plays a particularly important role in the economies of the Union’s coastal regions, including the outermost regions. Given that it provides fishermen in those regions with a livelihood, steps should be taken to foster market stability and a better correspondence between supply and demand. I am voting in favour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I agree with the majority of this report. European citizens must be given clearer information about the fish they consume so that they can be guided towards products from sustainable and, if possible, local fisheries. We need to reduce our ecological debt by consuming less imported fish, and we need to improve the quality of fishery products on the market and encourage employment in Europe’s fishing sector. However, I deplore the ambiguity of the text as to whether or not it supports the system of transferable fishing concessions (TFCs). I therefore abstained, out of mistrust.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The common organisation of the markets is the first component of the common fisheries policy, but also one of the most important ones. I welcome the adoption of this report, which is the first element of a larger reform package targeting European fisheries. Throughout the EU, citizens that make a living from fishing and fish processing expect this reform to bring substantial changes, which, in turn, should increase their quality of life and the quality of the products ending up on European consumers’ tables.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The common organisation of the market (CMO) is a key component of the common fisheries policy (CFP). In this report, a special focus was set on the future role and objectives of producer organisations, which should play a more meaningful role in the management of fisheries and therefore require the correct tools to enable them to regulate the activity of their members more effectively. Labelling is another key issue in this report, which argues that consumers have a right to have better and understandable information on the fishery product they buy, particularly on the date of catch and the date of landing. I voted for this report, but I disagreed with the inclusion of the date of catch of fishery products. Indeed, I believe that properly preserving fish and maintaining its quality, both on board and after landing, is more important than the date of catch.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The common organisation of the market (CMO) has been the first component of the common fisheries policy (CFP) since 1970. In the framework of a truly reformed CFP, producer organisations should play a more meaningful role in the day-to-day management of fisheries under a more regionalised system. The use of modern technology to improve market intelligence should be promoted in the framework of the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. It is also important to guarantee consumers the right to better, understandable information on the fishery products they buy through appropriate labelling. In view of these aims and particularly the importance of rewarding sustainable fishing practices with an EU eco-label, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This is the first of three legislative reports on the reform of the CFP, dealing with the market in fisheries and aquaculture products. The other two are the basic regulations governing the CFP and the EMFF (subsidies). A Common Market Organisation (CMO) for fisheries and aquaculture products has been in place since 1970. It is one of the pillars of the CFP. Its legal basis is Regulation 104/2000, adopted in 1999, which will be replaced by the current proposal. In its preparation, the COM has concluded that the market has not sufficiently contributed to sustainable production; many EU fisheries are not exploited in a sustainable way and there are few market mechanisms to discourage unsustainable practices and to provide market premiums for sustainable ones. Similarly, it has proved difficult or impossible to anticipate or manage market fluctuations. A very limited consumer label was introduced in 2000 and has been much expanded in the report (now to include better explanation of where the fish comes from - which body of water, the flag of the vessel, inside or outside the EU, etc. )- though we failed to get included the gear type used to catch the fish and an indication of whether the stock is overexploited or not.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of the measures against countries that authorise unsustainable fishing, and also the initial reports on the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP), which include the new common organisation of the markets (CMO) regulation in fishery and aquaculture products.

This is the first time Parliament has been involved in the establishment of the new CFP as a colegislator. I agree with the aims of the CMO reform: to provide market incentives to support more sustainable production practices, to improve the market positioning of EU production, to help producers adapt to structural market changes and fluctuations, to enhance the market potential of EU products, and to improve governance.

The final report on the CMO contains the majority of my amendments and progress towards the sustainability of resources, competitiveness within the sector and improvement in consumer information. I regret there is no support for the inshore fishing industry, which operates on 24-hour trips, to promote its high-quality products by indicating the date of capture. The unique nature and special management of small-scale fisheries and aquaculture, including shellfish, have been taken into account, as well as the development of product quality policies.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. As the Member responsible for consumer protection, I thought it important to emphasise the issue of labelling. Consumers have a right to have better and understandable information on the fishery product they buy, so as to make an informed choice. However, the frozen products referred to should be exempted from this rule, as they already bear the date of freezing (or date of first freezing), which - along with ‘best-by’ dates - would produce an overkill of dates, most likely confusing for the consumer. Labels should also carry information about easily identifiable fishing zones to which consumers can relate, unlike the currently used labelling for zones. Fish species should also be identified using locally familiar names on all labels. Consumers should be clear about which fisheries products have been frozen and defrosted, particularly with regard to ‘fresh fish’ products.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As part of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, a special focus was set on the future role and objectives of producer organisations (POs). POs should play a more meaningful role in the day-to-day management of fisheries under a more regionalised system. The internationalisation of POs or the creation of transnational associations should be promoted. The future common organisation of the markets must also contribute positively to a dynamic development of the EU aquaculture sector, in order to better meet European growing demand for fish against a background of declining wild fish stocks. The use of modern technology should be promoted in the framework of the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. For these reasons, I voted for this report.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, although it would have been a better idea to put it to the vote after the adoption of the basic Regulation on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The progress achieved by the vote is patchy. On the negative side: this report provides for a market of landed by-catch, and yet this landing has not yet been agreed in the basic regulation. It is, however, necessary to have at our disposal a legal framework, without pre-empting any means which will be implemented to limit, or even eliminate, by-catches. I was, on the other hand, very much in favour of Parliament recognising the need to put European funding for the storage mechanism on a sustainable basis and agreeing to create an eco-label. Producer organisations have also been given greater power and recognition, and can, in particular, become transnational. Finally, the report supports the development of aquaculture, a development that I support providing that we bear in mind that this activity is complementary to fishing and must be set within a framework of strict environmental standards, without promoting the creation of a fish meal market.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the proposal for a regulation on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products. The regulation seeks to ensure that the common organisation of the markets shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives laid down in the regulation on the common fisheries policy and, in particular, provide market incentives to support more sustainable production practices, improve the market position of EU products, devise production strategies with a view to adapting the policy to structural market changes and short-term fluctuations, and enhance the market potential of EU products.

The common market organisation shall be guided by the principles of good governance which it shall achieve by means of a clear definition of responsibilities at EU, national, regional and local levels, a long-term perspective, the broad involvement of operators, the responsibility of the flag State, and consistency with integrated maritime, trade and other EU policies.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (EL) The group of the Greek Communist Party in the European Parliament voted against the report on a proposal for a regulation, because it comes within the framework of the reform of the anti-grassroots common fisheries policy. The aim of the reform is further capitalist restructuring of the fisheries sector, by destroying small-scale fisheries, which the current CFP has already achieved to a large degree, and boosting large-scale fishing fleets and aquaculture monopolies. The proposal to restructure the common market in fishery and aquaculture products is designed to further strengthen monopoly groups in the sector. The producer organisations, for which different financing instruments are provided by the EU, will enlarge the monopoly groups and mark the final destruction of poor and average fishermen. It introduces transferable fishing concessions administered by producer organisations, which will enlarge monopoly groups and mark the final destruction of poor and average fishermen, as the monopolies in the area will obtain a large number of licences. The proposed ban on discards will be conducive to a concentration of monopolies in the sector, as only the monopolies have the material and technical processing infrastructure required and poor and average fishermen who cannot meet requirements will disappear.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which reconciles the challenges facing the sector: product quality for consumers, sustainability and economic viability of fishing activities. In this respect, the role of producer organisations must be strengthened, as a counter-balance to the power of retailers, prices must be set that are reasonable for the consumer and fair for the fishermen, and fishing quotas must be managed. The sector must of course remain competitive, but not at any price: nobody wants to witness the disappearance of our artisanal fishing, threatened by intensive practices, climate change and market tensions. Fishing is deeply rooted in our culture and our heritage, and I refused to compromise on the protection of our model of fishing and aquaculture. With this vote, Parliament has established an optimal framework to protect our fishermen and manage stocks sustainably, by means of a balanced approach adapted to the specificities of different fishing areas. Furthermore, I supported this report’s major innovation: the creation of a European eco-label, which will guarantee the conservation of fish stocks and ensure the traceability of fishery products from the boat to the plate.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. − I have voted in favour of 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. In doing so, I continue my efforts to focus on the future role and objectives of producer organisations (POs). Introduced as a counter-balance to the power of retailers, POs have been effective in ensuring realistic prices for the catches landed by their members; however I firmly believe they must be given the correct tools to enable themselves to regulate the activity of their members more effectively. Therefore POs should play a more meaningful role in the day-to-day management of fisheries under a more regionalised system. The strengthening and economic viability of existing POs is equally important. Moreover, criteria must be clearly defined on the minimum number of members and criteria for the formal recognition of POs need to be increased to encourage them to be big enough to be relevant on the market.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − This legislation is part of the reform of the common fisheries policy and will help boost the competitiveness of the industry, reduce the level of discards and introduce ‘eco-labelling’, so that consumers have more information on the sustainability of their fish. I also voted in favour of an amendment that would have given consumers more information on the fish they are buying, including the date it was caught, rather than just when it was landed. Under current rules, fish can be kept on ice on a fishing boat for several days before being landed, but be labelled with the same date as those caught and landed the same day. Research shows this is something that UK consumers want, and would have allowed them to tell how fresh their fish really is, as well as support smaller-scale fishing boats.

Elmar Brok report (A7-0252/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I approve the proposal presented in this report, given that it is important to recognise the specificity in the development and implementation of the different components of the Union’s external action, including the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) (and its common security and defence policy), but also the neighbourhood policy, development policy, and international trade. This comprehensive approach is essential to constructing a strategic and coherent approach for pursuing the Union’s foreign policy. The 2010 Report of the Council includes important steps in the direction of mapping out the Union’s foreign policy priorities in a forward-looking and strategic framework. However, it falls short of the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty in important ways, including inter alia by not giving a sense of priorities or strategic guidelines for the CFSP. I believe that, whilst this report is intended to be ambitious and politically strategic, it should also be realistic and pragmatic. Indeed, this report should be a contribution to framing EU foreign policy and to setting benchmarks for monitoring and evaluating progress made over the coming years.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). It is an important document provisions of which I fully support. I am pleased that there was room in it to mention EU-Taiwan relations. I feel that this is very important, particularly in today’s context where the protracted dispute between Japan and China over a chain of islands has recently begun to escalate into open confrontation. It should be highlighted that the existence of Taiwan and its peaceful, non-confrontational policies are important for maintaining stability in the region of the East China Sea, and that Taiwan in general also acts as a stabilising factor. The EU welcomes good relations with Taiwan, which must be developed further. In this context I welcome the resolution’s provision that we must urge the Commission and the Council to take concrete steps to further enhance EU-Taiwan economic relations, and to facilitate the negotiation of an EU-Taiwan economic cooperation agreement. Furthermore, the EU must firmly support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in relevant international organisations and activities, including the World Health Organisation. I am pleased that the EU visa waiver programme for Taiwanese citizens, which entered into force in January 2011, has proven to be mutually beneficial.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Greek Communist Party voted against the report, because it promotes an even more aggressive foreign policy and defence policy and calls for an increase in military and non-military EU operations. The new position of ‘EU special representative for human rights’ is designed to provide cover for EU interventions, such as the European Democracy Foundation, that will use secret funds to finance ‘dissenters’ and parties. The report calls for an even more aggressive role for the EU in the Western Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. It supports the need to strengthen the European Defence Agency, pooling and sharing programmes, full militarisation of the EU Horizon 2020 research programme and common defence measures. It provides full support for the imperialist intervention in Syria, by calling for additional measures in the name of the ‘right of civilians to protection from slaughter by the regime’, as it did in the war in Libya. It tries to pass this new pretext for imperialist interventions off as a UN ‘principle’. The report calls for the EU to come fully into line with NATO in Afghanistan and elsewhere and with the decisions by the Chicago Summit in 2012 and fully covers NATO plans for the so-called anti-missile defence shield and nuclear weapons in Europe.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP). Above all, EU foreign and security policy must ensure the protection and defence of the EU’s values and interests worldwide, as well as contribute to peace, human security, solidarity, conflict prevention, the rule of law and the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the eradication of poverty and the defence of other values in the international arena. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU acquired a new European external action dimension and EU external policy must therefore be coherent, consistent, effective and based on long-term strategies. I welcome the criticisms expressed in the resolution that the Council’s Annual Report on the CFSP does not establish clear medium and long-term priorities or mechanisms for ensuring their coherence. I believe that the EU’s external policy must be based on clearly defined and measurable criteria and guidelines, which would help monitor the progress made and ensure consistent EU policies in this area.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms McAvan’s report on a proposal for a directive, since I agree with the need to strengthen pharmacovigilance in an attempt to counter the practices of pharmaceutical companies that continue to market products that have been declared harmful to European consumers’ health and therefore banned from the market.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the development of a new strategic approach is a major contribution to the European Union’s foreign policy. The Council’s 2010 Annual Report falls short of the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty in several important aspects. I could for example mention the lack of a sense of priorities or strategic guidelines for the CFSP, and the avoidance of questions ensuring that the Union’s resources are aligned with its foreign affairs priorities. Furthermore, the EU is encouraged to achieve greater synergies based upon the triple-hatted mandate and supported by the European External Action Service.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I hope Mr Brok will accept my congratulations on the courage and rigour with which he has addressed certain problems that have been dragging on unresolved for some time and which could weaken not only the common foreign and security policy but also the Union’s political position and credibility in general.

In view of the financial crisis, now may actually be the right time to solve these problems, as I think the rapporteur has intended to do by starting from certain fixed, methodological points to outline a comprehensive, coherent and consistent Union approach to foreign policy, based on a realistic assessment of scenarios, options, resources and results.

Parliament today has a central role in defining the EU’s foreign policy and the parameters for its evaluation, since it is the repository of political legitimacy invested in it by Europe’s citizens, to whom it is accountable.

Recent developments in the crisis have quickened people’s full awareness of their shared destiny in governing the currency, the economy and the very institutions. Foreign policy cannot be anything other than a key part of this feeling of being Europe. That is why I voted in favour of the report.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 11 September 2012, I voted in favour of the report on the Council’s Annual Report to Parliament on common foreign and security policy. This report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, far from simply being a revision of Council’s report, shows the importance of a contribution from Parliament to the definition of a new strategic and forward-looking approach to the European Union’s foreign policy. In this regard, several priorities are announced that I support: the ambition of greater coordination with partners in the area of civilian and military crisis management, the need to set benchmarks for monitoring and evaluating progress over the coming years and the desire to make up for the absence of leadership of the Union by entrusting Baroness Ashton with an important lead role in all areas of European external action.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report because I support the new strategic and forward-looking approach to the European Union’s foreign policy proposed therein.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted ‘against’ the Brok report, because I consider that it urges the European Parliament and the other Union institutions to subscribe to the militarisation of foreign policy, via the CFSP, to the detriment of a peaceful policy based on cooperation between all EU Member States and third countries, far from dangerous ethnic infighting and political/military intervention. As a member of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, I express my unwavering opinion, in opposition to this report, that the Union should be strictly separated from the NATO war machine, that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which has no democratic or ethical credentials, should be dissolved, that Europe should disarm, that immediate and drastic cuts should be made to arms programmes and military spending and that international law and the UN Charter should be respected. The continuing trend by the prevailing forces in the European Union to equate foreign policy with military power and the NATO military machine with the Union’s prospects are both contrary to its declared values and, at the same time, prevent any effort to bring about a Europe and a world of peace, cooperation and solidarity between states and nations.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The common foreign and security policy is still having trouble finding its way. If it spoke with one voice, the European Union would be able to make itself heard more clearly on the international stage. The Commission and the Member States must coordinate their diplomatic resources better, and, if necessary, their military resources. European foreign policy can have an important role to play if the 27 manage to harmonise their national foreign policies. In Syria, for example, the European Union holds all the cards to be able to propose, along with other actors such as Turkey and the Arab League, a way out of the crisis.

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. – (FR) Lurking behind barbaric acronyms (EEAS, VP/HR, CFSP, ESDP) lies the Union’s desire to get its hands on international relations and foreign affairs The annual report on foreign policy puts forward a series of utopian proposals both in terms of content and of form.

In this sensitive area, as indeed in others, the race towards European integration will lead to disaster.

While there must be cooperation in certain areas between European States, we cannot accept competences being transferred to the bureaucracy in Brussels or hand over national representations to Baroness Ashton, giving her, while we are at it, a great deal of money and credibility.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the common foreign and security policy as it contributes to framing a new strategic and forward-looking approach to the European Union’s Foreign Policy. I believe that this approach represents an important strategic level of ambition and an essential framework for developing a comprehensive, coherent and consistent Union approach to foreign policy.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats do not support the call for the Member States to increase European cooperation in the area of defence and to develop Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of security and defence that might lead to a common defence policy. We believe that the report fails to deal with the reservations expressed about this. We also think that the wording should have included the perspective of the Member States on this question and should have taken into consideration the different traditions and positions of the Member States with regard to foreign, security and defence policy. We believe it is important to safeguard Sweden’s policy of non-alignment.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The demands contained in the minority opinion on Mr Brok’s report, tabled by MEPs from the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, are an excellent list of steps that the EU must not take at risk of becoming not only irrelevant but above all vulnerable: secede from NATO, abandon the military component and cut defence spending, close all military bases in Europe, disarm fully and abstain from interventionist policies whenever the main instruments of international law and the most relevant international bodies so recommend. Fortunately the majority of this Parliament thinks differently, does not abstain from seeking to protect its citizens and recognises that the transatlantic partnership that saved us from Sovietism is the best guarantee of common security. The EU cannot therefore exempt itself from seeking to assume a more leading, consistent and coherent role at this level. This requires pragmatism and rigour but also ambition.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Global security is a matter that concerns all well-informed citizens, especially when images of the Holocaust and the attacks of 11 September 2001, to name but two examples, are very clear in our individual and collective memories. Even when we least expect it, the threat of another conflict between nations suddenly looms: the island dispute between China and Japan. Such a scenario leads us to assign a key role to foreign policy and to the security of Europeans. I voted for the report by Elmar Brok on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the common foreign and security policy, which highlights the need for the European Union to speak with a single voice on this matter, fosters collaboration between the EU and countries involved in the Arab Spring, promotes respect for human rights in exchange for financial support, highlights cooperation with Eastern European countries and seeks to ensure military and economic cooperation, drawing attention to the fact that nowadays wars are not won with tanks but through financial measures.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) There is a lot to say about this report and there are many reasons why we voted against it. Using the Treaty of Lisbon as a point of departure, the report proposes strengthening the EU’s strategic partnership with NATO, confirming the EU as the European pillar of this organisation and advocating the ‘pooling and sharing’ of military resources, primarily through the European Defence Agency. While removing hard-won rights from workers and ordinary people, it takes further steps towards the militarisation of the EU, which will be ‘funded adequately’ in line with its ambitions. After defending the military attack on Libya, the majority of Parliament now wishes to go beyond the ongoing financial and military support of terrorist groups in Syria and take military action in the country. They insist on the old EU ambition of securing a permanent seat in a reformed UN Security Council; not to defend peace but to operationalise ‘the responsibility to protect principle’, that is, the implementation of so-called ‘preventive wars’.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Council Report for 2010 maps out the EU’s foreign policy priorities, but it does not pay attention to the priorities or strategic guidelines for the CFSP. Moreover, the report does not clarify the policy mechanisms for ensuring coherence and consistency among the different components of foreign policy, including those under the responsibility of the Commission. The EU urgently needs greater synergies based upon the triple-hatted mandate of Catherine Ashton as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of the Commission, and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Council, which is supported by the EEAS. In the area of the CFSP, we need to take high-quality, courageous, decisive and timely action. At the same time, however, we must remain realistic when setting goals and, with regard to the resources at our disposal, we must consider our priorities carefully.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Brok report on the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). We want to turn the European Union into, at one and the same time, a humanitarian organisation, a docile supporter of NATO and a body which negotiates free-trade agreements with the whole world. The CFSP is Baroness Ashton living in La La Land: any problem can be solved providing that we give a lot of money, that we open our borders to everyone and everything and that we give lessons in dubious morality to the rest of the world and, in particular, that our American Big Brother effectively continues to guarantee our security in the face of real threats. The problem is that the Union has never thought of itself, Treaty of Lisbon or otherwise, as a major world power. It is constantly pursuing an international political role that it can never attain, because it will not rest until it has destroyed the diplomatic and military capabilities of its members. This is done in the name of a cosy ideology, unadulterated commercialism and a Malthusian budgetary rationale. Europe is neither synergy nor synthesis. It is simply the sum of its weaknesses. It deadens and dissolves all it touches. Each Member State must recover its full sovereignty for its own security and its links with other States.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) While this report represents progress in the field of foreign and security policy, it also shows a clear and unmistakable picture of our failure to speak with one voice. The structural weaknesses of Europe are, of course, being intensified by the efforts of some Member States to retain their sovereignty. The fact that this does not strengthen any individual country but weakens Europe is clear in many policy areas, for example, when we talk about reinforcing the right of citizens in many countries to participate in the democratic process or when we call for social and environmental standards to be applied. An additional consequence of this failure is that we are imposing rules on ourselves in important policy areas, but we are exposing ourselves to unfair competition from countries and continents which do not respect these rules.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because I believe that the EU should develop its foreign policy objectives further and advance its values and interests worldwide with the overall aim of contributing to peace, human security, solidarity, conflict prevention, the rule of law and the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, gender equality, respect for international law, support for international institutions, effective multilateralism and mutual respect among nations, sustainable development, transparent and accountable governance, free and fair trade and the eradication of poverty. In order to achieve these goals the EU should be able to create synergies and develop strategic partnerships with those countries that share the same values and are willing to adopt common policies and engage in mutually agreed actions. The EU‘s ability to influence the international order depends not only on coherence among its policies, actors and institutions, but also on a real strategic concept of EU foreign policy, which must unite and coordinate all Member States behind the same set of priorities and goals so that they speak with a strong single voice and show solidarity in the international arena. The EU’s foreign policy must be provided with the necessary means to enable the Union to act effectively and consistently on the world stage.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Mr Brok in plenary. This own-initiative report contributes to the definition of a new strategic, forward-looking approach to EU foreign policy. Taking the ambitions of the Treaty of Lisbon as its point of departure (particularly Article 24(1) of the Treaty on European Union), Parliament invites Baroness Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, to exercise leadership through courageous and decisive action. We must unfortunately note the absence of any leadership. The common and foreign and security policy urgently needs a coherent strategic approach.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because it underlines several issues of tremendous importance for the EU’s foreign policy. I wholeheartedly agree when we underline that the US is the most important strategic partner for the EU. I believe that we must ardently foster this relationship with our American ally. In our report, we explicitly state that the Eastern Neighbourhood is of strategic importance and highlight that all decisions concerning the Eastern Partnership should be accompanied by the allocation of adequate financial resources. We also note the growing discontent expressed by many Russian citizens and underline our willingness to contribute to the Partnership for Modernisation and to any successor to the current Partnership and Cooperation Agreement which should be linked to Russia’s progress regarding human rights, rule of law and pluralist democracy. In terms of the Association Agreement with Central America, which will be signed shortly, I welcome that we indicate our intention to closely monitor the implementation of the agreement and its impact on the situation for human rights and the rule of law. I emphasise this because we need to do everything in our power to monitor and promote human rights in Cuba.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The Council report for 2010 contains important steps towards mapping out the EU’s foreign policy priorities in a forward-looking and strategic framework. However, the report falls short of the ambitions of the Treaty of Lisbon in important ways, which include not addressing the priorities or strategic guidelines for the common foreign and security policy. The report does not clarify the policy mechanisms for ensuring coherence and consistency among the different components of foreign policy. It avoids the issues of harmonisation of EU resources with our priorities in foreign affairs. Parliament therefore calls on the Vice-President of the Commission to take the lead in adopting high-quality and courageous measures, and also to lay emphasis on European neighbourhood policy in the situation at hand. I have supported the EP’s position.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of Elmar Brok’s report. It comprehensively addresses crucial issues connected with the common foreign and security policy. In particular, I welcome the provisions regarding better utilisation of capacity and financial resources and improved cooperation between the EU and NATO in order to avoid duplication. Similarly, I welcome the emphasis on the importance of the Eastern Partnership to the EU. The recognition of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region is also noteworthy.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution which welcomes the decision for the appointment of an EU special representative for human rights who should have a substantial mandate to mainstream human rights across the CFSP, the CSDP and other EU policies and to provide visibility and coherence to the EU’s action in this field.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Terrorism, organised crime, the proliferation of regional conflicts, the security of energy supply or climate change are all security threats. These threats are increasingly present at global level and, implicitly, in Europe. In order to face these risks, the European Union needs an integrated approach requiring the joint and united effort of all Member States. Partnerships with important international actors also play an essential role in tackling these scourges.

The European Union should offer greater support to the efforts made by partner countries in enforcing the obligations related to human rights, the strengthening democracy, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Coherence and consistency between the different components of the foreign policy must be ensured. For this reason, special attention must be given to strengthening the relations between the European Union’s High Representative, the European External Action Service and the Member States. As regards the future of the common foreign and security policy, an aspect of particular importance is the strengthening of financial instruments promoting peacebuilding, security, democracy and the rule of law.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. We need a strategic outlook. We must replace fear with courage. Courage will spur us into action that in time will breed hope, and the real hope for the whole world is for Europe, in its international relations, to have the strength to back the convictions that have ensured the exceptional conditions of the last 60 years.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report affirms respect for the central role of the United Nations and a determination to work on reforming it. However, therein lies its only positive point. All else is merely imperialist arrogance. The text aims to introduce huge free-trade areas for each area in the world, and even goes so far as to confuse free trade and rule of law. It calls for the strengthening of the institutions of the emerging great transatlantic market and its security dimension. It says that it is the mainstay of Latin American regional integration when this region, with the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CELAC), has clearly shown that it has no need of the EU to integrate. It mocks Argentina’s attempts to decolonise in the Falkland Islands and denounces its ‘nationalisation’ of YPF. It ignores the need to respect the 1967 borders in the Middle East. It calls for the strengthening of NATO, the military arm of EU and US imperialism. I vote against this arrogant text and denounce it as an imperialist manifesto.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report. It aims to review the Council report on the CFSP for 2010 and to set out an approach for the future of the EU strategy in foreign policy. The Treaty of Lisbon also states that the ‘Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy covers all areas of foreign policy’, thereby paving the way for a more cohesive and unanimous strategy. Of course, the new initiatives must strike the right balance and must rest on realistic bases that take account of the different economic, political and geostrategic interests of each Member State. This particular report, which I supported, succeeds in addressing these two points and, instead of simply calling for a new European strategy on security, helps to define EU foreign policy and lay down reference points for monitoring and evaluating the progress that needs to be made in coming years.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which marks a new point of departure for the Annual Report on the common foreign and security policy and is intended as Parliament’s contribution to framing a new strategic and forward-looking approach to the European Union’s foreign policy. I share the rapporteur’s call for leadership through quality, courage and decisive and timely action coupled with a leadership approach that prioritises the European neighbourhood policy as a strategic principle for the EU.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The ambitions of the Treaty of Lisbon, whereby ‘the Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence’ (Article 24(1) of the Treaty on European Union), are the point of departure for creating an essential framework for developing a comprehensive, coherent and consistent Union approach to foreign policy. To this end, Parliament needs to make a further contribution, and one that is more pragmatic than the 2010 Council report on the common foreign and security policy, which did not measure up to the ambitions of the Treaty of Lisbon. In the hope that it will provide a new European security strategy and contribute to the framing of EU foreign policy, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) I voted in favour of the Brok report because it is strategically and, at the same time, pragmatically conceived and because it is based on the European Union’s values, with an emphasis on peace, human rights and security.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. − (DE) I have voted in favour of the report on the annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the common foreign and security policy, although I opposed one point relating to the free trade agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru. This agreement has one further threshold to cross: the approval of the European Parliament. I have reservations because of the human rights situation and the rights of trade unions in Colombia. I will not be able to vote in favour of a free trade agreement with Colombia and Peru in future, unless an obligation to respect human rights is made into a condition of the agreement. Furthermore, effective monitoring of compliance with human rights obligations is needed, not only by the Andean Community itself, but also by the European Union.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With this vote we are making the point that, although the Treaty of Lisbon is creating a new momentum in EU foreign policy by providing institutional and operational tools, its effectiveness and sustainability are being undermined by the ongoing financial crisis.

In order to bring its weight to bear internationally, the EU must not only ensure that its policies, actors and institutions are consistent, but it must also develop a real strategic concept of its foreign policy and provide the necessary personnel, as well as the financial and diplomatic resources needed.

Today we have sent Baroness Ashton a clear message. In times of growing challenges and limited resources, the European Union’s foreign policy must be strategic and forward looking. The new strategic framework for the EU’s external action must also be democratically legitimate. As Members of this House we have a vital role to play if EU policy is to gain the understanding and support of the people of Europe.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. The proposal had very weak points. For instance: most of the parts dealing with security and defence capabilities and the paragraphs on the European Defence Agency. The chapter on NATO welcomes the New Strategic Concept avoiding any criticism of, for example, the development of a civilian crisis management capability that sounds like a duplication of EU's one and the development of a Ballistic Missile Defence capability. And the part of Latin America welcoming all the free agreements finalised or under negotiation.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because I believe a new comprehensive and strategic concept of European foreign policy is needed to ensure that the EU’s external action is consistent and effective in achieving its aims.

While the Treaty of Lisbon is already imparting new momentum to the EU’s foreign policy, its effectiveness will be sorely tested if its minimum resource levels are not maintained. To assert itself on the international stage, the EU must not only make sure that its policies, actors and institutions are consistent, but it must also develop a new strategic foreign policy model in order to be fully successful.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has proved that it is fully capable of playing its role in the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). Indeed, the report in favour of which I voted in plenary contains an ambitious strategic and forward-looking analysis, in line with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon in this regard. In this text, Parliament recommends that the Council introduce policy mechanisms for ensuring the coherence of our external action and benchmarks enabling it to be evaluated, to provide the European External Action Service (EEAS) with the means it needs to fulfil its mission and to provide strategic guidelines and realistic priorities for the CFSP. At these times of economic austerity, we must prioritise actions with high added value. The new European neighbourhood policy, in particular, has been prioritised. Furthermore, on the crucial question of geographical differentiation, it has been noted that the choice of strategic partners deserves careful reflection in the light of the values and objectives of the European Union.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Brok’s report, because it gives the right impression of the EU’s priorities and strategic approaches. I consider that it includes important steps towards setting out the Union’s foreign policy priorities within a long-term, strategic framework.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report. The voters of whom I am one hope that this report will call on the European Union to achieve greater synergies based upon the triple-hatted mandate of Baroness Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of the Commission and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Council, and supported by the European External Action Service (EEAS).

It should be noted that the transition towards a new approach to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) has given rise to difficulties. It is essential for the High Representative / Vice-President of the Commission and the EEAS to play their leadership role. The absence of leadership and of a strategic approach necessitates the prioritisation of the European Neighbourhood Policy as a strategic principle, including in the development of CFSP.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In this report, the rapporteur aims to present Parliament’s recommendations and opinions and not only provide a thorough analysis of the 2010 report of the Council. He therefore wishes to put forward a constructive criticism that points out errors and problems and that, simultaneously, takes account of the Member States’ current financial constraints. The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) was given an enhanced role following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’s role is to make EU foreign policy coherent and effective and to avoid confusion between the different Member States. However, there are still shortcomings in terms of cooperation and the instruments to use. We must afford the High Representative the necessary powers for the EU to respond with a single voice, to set realistic and pragmatic priorities and to reflect on the financial and diplomatic resources required for the European External Action Service. We cannot have a global Europe without coherence, without effectiveness and without a precise strategy with similarly precise objectives.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament Resolution on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the common foreign and security policy. The EU should develop its foreign policy objectives further and advance its values and interests worldwide with the overall aim of contributing to peace, human security, solidarity, the rule of law, conflict prevention and the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, sustainable development, transparent and accountable governance, free and fair trade and the eradication of poverty.

Pursuant to the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU has all the means necessary to adopt a comprehensive approach, whereby all the Union’s diplomatic and financial resources are used to back common strategic policy guidelines in order to have the greatest possible leverage in promoting the security and economic prosperity of European citizens and their neighbours, as well as fundamental rights. We call for the further development of an appropriate mechanism within the European External Action Service (EEAS), with the participation of the relevant Commission services, where geographic and thematic expertise are integrated and drive a comprehensive approach to the common foreign and security policy planning, formulation and implementation.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This annual report marks a new departure for diplomacy as, since Lisbon, our Parliament no longer has a simple right to information, but a genuine freedom of action in all areas of foreign policy. I supported the principal ambition of this report, which means that, if we want visible and effective European diplomacy, we must rationalise resources and means, and align them with our objectives. We can no longer dispense with this common sense approach, for which I have been calling for a long time. At the same time, we must strengthen cooperation with NATO and national armed forces. In a globalised world, where inter-state relationships between allied countries are based on solidarity, I think that it is pointless to develop our defence capabilities within a strictly national framework, without considering bringing together, or even sharing, means and resources. Further dithering would be extremely dangerous, at a time when there are ever-increasing numbers of flashpoints, human rights violations and threats. With this in mind, I make this appeal to Baroness Ashton: assert yourself as the European Union’s true patroness of Foreign Affairs. You have the means and the legitimacy to do so, all you need is the determination.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − The idea of a new extensive approach, including all areas of the common foreign and security policy as well as determined priorities and a balanced mix in financing is reasonable. The report's particular suggestions for EU policy on how to deal with different third countries and the multilateral partners are carried out well. The priorities of the common foreign and security policy are embracing and comprehensible.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This annual report marks the beginning of a genuinely ‘new strategic approach’ by Parliament to the European Union’s foreign policy, taking the ambitions set out in the Treaty of Lisbon as our point of departure.

The aim is to develop a comprehensive Union approach, which will be essential to pursuing a common foreign policy. The strategic and forward-looking framework of the Council’s 2010 report is fundamentally important, even though it falls somewhat short of certain ambitions of the Treaty of Lisbon. I voted for the report, since it makes a valid contribution to framing the EU’s foreign policy.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In the midst of the deepening crisis of capitalism, this is another demonstration of how militarism, interference and disrespect for national sovereignty are used to win markets and control of essential natural and energy resources for the major EU powers. The report suggests strengthening the EU’s strategic partnership with NATO, confirming the EU as the European pillar of this organisation and advocating the ‘pooling and sharing’ of military resources, primarily through the European Defence Agency. While removing the most basic rights of workers and ordinary people, it calls for EU militarisation to be ‘funded adequately’ in line with its ambitions. After defending the military attack on Libya, the majority of Parliament now wishes to go beyond the ongoing financial and military support of terrorist groups in Syria and take military action against the country. It again refers to the old EU ambition of securing a permanent seat in a reformed UN Security Council; not to defend peace but to operationalise ‘the responsibility to protect principle’, that is, the implementation of so-called preventive wars.

Carl Haglund report (A7-0225/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report. Long-term management plans (LTMPs) should be established for all EU fisheries and/or geographical fishing regions, whereby particularities of the various European seas should be taken into account and small-scale coastal fisheries should be treated in a separate regime. The current system of managing fish stocks has not led to healthier stocks and is thus hampering the overall aim of finding an appropriate balance between the ecological and economic aspects. Assuming the LTMPs are successful, the Council must pursue the objectives and in particular the harvest control rules set by the co-legislators within the LTMPs, deploying the best available scientific advice and applying the precautionary principle. A reformed common fisheries policy (CFP) should take account of this.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I remain wholly opposed to the idea of Transferable Fishing Concessions, and instead want to see a CFP that focuses on promoting a prospering industry which enhances rural communities and ensures them for future generations. I feel that this report does not focus on this, and places a dangerous emphasis on TFCs, that is why I have voted against it.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) According to the most recent Commission report, the current common fisheries policy has fallen short of its goals as regards conservation and sustainable exploitation of EU fisheries. Moreover, the fishing capacity has not been adjusted to the available fisheries resources, which has been revealed by alarming data: more than 60% of the fish stocks in European waters are fished beyond the maximum sustainable yield. Therefore, I think it is necessary for the Commission to establish long-term management plans for commercial fisheries.

Regionalising the common fisheries policy should also be a priority, whereby the specificities of the different European seas should be taken into account, as well as the situation of small-scale fisheries in the different areas of the EU. Moreover, establishing a network of closed areas in which all fishing activities are prohibited in order to achieve efficient results in terms of the conservation of living aquatic resources and the marine ecosystem is also important.

For these reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. It provides for a move away from excessively intensive fishing and over-fishing while ensuring a livelihood for EU fishermen. I welcome the proposals on developing long-term management plans for all EU fisheries regions, taking into account the particularities of the seas, and those on treating small-scale coastal fisheries in a separate regime. Long-term management plans should have a clear objective and be based on an ecosystem approach in order to manage mixed fisheries. I agree that we need to establish a mechanism to provide compensation for fishermen affected by financial difficulties. We need to develop an effective no-discards policy, a sanctioning mechanism for Member States which do not comply with the rules and grant the Community Fisheries Control Agency greater powers to ensure the functioning of the sanction system.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of this report given there is a need to adapt the capacity to the available fishery resources, an issue that had not been tackled by the measures of the previous reform.

We need to adopt technical measures, therefore, to create long-term management plans for all fisheries within a decentralised management regime. Prior to applying the measures, we need to define overcapacity and fishing capacity, and to understand the true extent of the fishing effort.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted for Mr Haglund’s report because I agree with the proposal to introduce a system of individually transferable fishing concessions, which, however, is subject to strict safeguards. I am also in favour of the establishment of a special regime for small-scale and coastal fisheries in order to protect them from competition from industrial fisheries, and a further regime for environmentally friendly fishing vessels. The aim of these measures is to reduce overcapacity in the fisheries currently operating in European waters.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation, by rebuilding fish stocks and reducing fleet capacity, have been insufficient. Recovery plans must be established for all EU and geographical fisheries regions whereby particularities of the various seas would be taken into account and small-scale coastal fisheries would be treated in a separate regime. The current situation is one where short-term national concerns prevail over long-term management and this prevents the overall aim from being achieved. It is very important to set up a framework for decision-making in data-poor situations regarding management plans and total allowable catches (TACs) as well as quota decisions because there is a clear lack of reliable and available data. As the existing provisions of the common fisheries policy (CFP) were not sufficient to address the issue of over-fishing, we need to reform the CFP, set clear deadlines for fleet reductions and pace targets as well as a sanctioning mechanism for Member States which do not comply with the rules. Financial support also needs to be guaranteed for fishermen who face the consequences of identified over-fishing. The adjustment of fleet capacity is another key aspect, which could ensure that sustainable fishing is rewarded. Moreover, preferential access to fishing rights should be granted to ecologically-friendly fishing vessels.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In order to preserve and adequately manage fishery resources, technical conservation measures applicable inter alia to mesh sizes, authorised sizes for fish available for fishing, as well as to restrictions on by-catches in certain areas, in certain periods of time or with certain types of watercrafts have been adopted.

I think the optimal exploitation of resources also calls for a permanent control of fishing activities, carried out by means of surveillance boats. In this case, under the principle of subsidiarity, the EU relies on the coercive measures taken by the Member States. Therefore, the authorities of the Member States are compelled to carry out inspections on the fishing boats in compliance with a common procedure. Their crews are also bound to keep a sea journal indicating the quantity of non-discarded by-catches from every species and submit to the local authorities at the docking point an unloading report, at the end of each voyage.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 11 September 2012, I voted in favour of reporting obligations under the regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy. I believe that it is necessary to maintain the principle of relative stability, which is crucial to the distribution of fishing quotas and guarantees the socio-economic stability of the sector.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe it is essential to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks in EU waters, to reduce fleet capacity and to extend the system of fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters to a regime of 10-20 miles, to more effectively achieve the objectives in this area.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy as it advocates developing an effective no-discards policy at EU level whereby the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) has greater powers to ensure a fair system of rules and sanctions.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report that the Commission is obliged to submit to Parliament and to the Council on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and the Member States’ performance regarding the adjustment of fishing capacity before the end of 2012 indicates that the Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks have been insufficient. The system of fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters has been working well. It is naturally important that the Commission provide for the establishment of long-term management plans for all commercial EU fisheries. It is therefore advisable to consider the possibility of grouping fisheries according to geographical fishing region by regionalising the common fisheries policy, whereby the specificities of the different European seas should be taken into account as well as the situation of small-scale fisheries in the different areas, in order to align management measures as closely as possible to the actual situations facing the different fleets.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report by Carl Haglund focuses on the report that the Commission is obliged to submit to Parliament and to the Council on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (CFP) and the Member States’ performance regarding the adjustment of fishing capacity before the end of 2012, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. Although the existing data are insufficient to develop long-term management plans, and it is essential to further these studies, they often enable us to conclude that there is overfishing, with discards and by-catches harming the sector’s sustainability. Moreover, the EU should not establish cooperation agreements with countries that do not comply with sustainable fishing practices. I would like to highlight the need to afford special treatment to the outermost regions, to safeguard their small fleets as well as small-scale coastal fishing. I hope that the management plans are implemented as quickly as possible to give us a system of sustainable fisheries.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to address Member States’ efforts to enhance the conservation of fisheries resources and to rebuild fish stocks, and also the system of fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters. The report as a whole is negative. It calls on the Commission to establish a system whereby Member States that do not fulfil their respective obligations regarding data collection and transmission are sanctioned, in a context where EU accountability (namely funding) for these obligations is clearly inadequate. It proposes sanctions, such as the freezing of funds from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), for Member States that fail to meet reduction targets for a sustainable level of capacity predefined for every fishery. It supports the introduction of transferable fishing concessions. In the Committee on Fisheries we tabled dozens of amendments that were overwhelmingly rejected. We therefore voted against this report.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − In the Commission’s recent report on efforts concerning the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in Member States, and current fishing capacity, it was concluded that Member States’ actions were insufficient in their attempts to re-build fish stocks and reduce fleet capacity. This subsequent Parliament report responds by calling for a definition of overcapacity at EU level, and the need to establish long-term management plans for all EU fisheries. It is of significant public interest to reform the common fisheries policy so that we see an end to fish discards and a more regionalised decision-making process. I therefore add my support to this report’s efforts to return sustainable fishing practices to our waters.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed the proposal because it calls for fish productivity to be increased and living aquatic resources and the marine ecosystem to be conserved in order to preserve living resources and ensure long-term environmental sustainability. The Commission report again confirms that the current common fisheries policy (CFP) has fallen short of its goals as regards conservation and sustainable exploitation of EU fisheries and adjusting the available fishing capacity to the available fisheries resources. More than 60% of the fish stocks in European waters are fished beyond maximum sustainable yield. The total allowable catch (TAC) and quota system has, in itself, proved to be inefficient in managing certain fish stocks sustainably over the last decade. A very significant number of jobs have been lost in the European fishing industry because of the poor state of fish stocks, increased production costs and falling prices.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr Haglund’s report was adopted by a large majority (399 votes to 228, with 31 abstentions in the case of the vote on paragraph 4, for example). Above all, it concerns the amendment of the measures relating to the multiannual plans for rebuilding and managing fish stocks in order to reconcile environmental requirements and social and economic considerations.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Although the Commission has established multiannual recovery plans, only a limited number of fish stocks in EU waters have so far been covered, which means that overfishing has not been diminished enough. In addition, given the diversity of European seas, I believe that long-term management plans should be established, taking into account the needs of all geographical fishing regions in the EU.

The European Commission must provide for the establishment of such plans within a highly decentralised regime which fully involves all stakeholders. Thus, by regionalising the common fisheries policy, we will be able to align the management measures to the actual situations facing the different fleets, thereby reducing overfishing.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this resolution because I could not support its call for the destruction of seals and seabirds.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. It is right to stress the need for a balance between the ecological and the economic and social situation in each fishery, while acknowledging that without plentiful fish stocks there will be no profitable fishing industry.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The general situation of European fish stocks is worrying, despite the fact that the common fisheries policy has managed to provide conclusive results in relation to some iconic species. Efforts must therefore be maintained and stepped up. This report proposes eliminating the general rule of a share-out of quotas between States said to be ‘in relative stability’. This is madness. It supports the privatisation of the resource by adopting individual transferable quotas. I am totally opposed to it. These quotas will give rise to a concentration of companies and job losses. They give no guarantee of restoring the stocks to good ecological status. I voted against this text.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this resolution because the fish stocks whose very survival is threatened cannot be kept waiting by the Member States’ bureaucratic delays any longer. The long-term management plans must be clearly defined and based on an ecosystem approach, whereby solutions need to be found for managing mixed fisheries. So long as certain Member States continue to delay informing the Commission of these plans, however, it will remain difficult to identify the areas for intervention with any precision. This will jeopardise the aim of protecting certain threatened species, such as bluefin tuna in our Mediterranean waters. This negligence also adversely affects the release of funding needed for very specific areas of relevant scientific research, and on several occasions Parliament has had to call for defaulting Member States to fulfil their obligations. The real problem is not one of applying the sanctions that are provided for, but how to speed up the prompt collection of data so as to protect the marine ecosystem.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report on reporting obligations on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources highlights important issues such as the adjustment of the EU fleet’s fishing capacity and the conservation and sustainability of fisheries resources. The report focused on very relevant aspects such as the need to find a balance between the ecological and economic aspects, the need to adopt an ecosystem approach to find appropriate solutions to manage mixed fisheries, the need to promote a gradual reduction in unwanted by-catches and discards, and the need to improve the quality and reliability of the data necessary for sound scientific advice. Due to the importance of these issues, and given that the report is well balanced, I voted for this report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission is obliged by Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 to report to both the European Parliament and the Council on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fishery resources and on the Member States’ performance regarding the adjustment of fishing capacity, before the end of 2012. The findings are certainly negative: Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks have been insufficient. That has made it necessary to reform the common fisheries policy so as to find a suitable balance between the ecological and the economic aspects and to provide a general definition of overcapacity at EU level and a specific definition at regional level, while taking regional weighting factors into account. I voted for the proposal with those aims in mind.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. The report is generally pretty good. Some of the decisions that are decisive for the reform – on the objectives of management, for example, as well as the adoption or not of rules requiring privatisation of the right to fish, and the discard ban – have been dealt with rather generally, in the direction of our policy but without the controversial dates of application. So that is positive.

Equally positive is language about the need to punish Member States which fail in their obligations to enforce the rules of the common fisheries policy, as well as mention of our environmental and social criteria for the right to fish. Nonetheless, some negative things have crept in, including language reflecting the silly and irrational belief by fishermen that killing seals will bring back the fish stocks. Neither of the Commission’s documents mentioned this at all, but it is a favourite issue for a few MEPs and so both reports support the killing of seals (and cormorants!). We tried to remove these references, but failed.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Haglund’s report, because I consider that the proposals contained in it strengthen the sustainability and recovery of fisheries resources and enhance the role and importance of multiannual plans to the recovery of fisheries resources.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, in the hope that the ideas contained therein are followed by strong action. Everybody agrees that multiannual management and stock rebuilding plans are important, whilst several countries in the Union continue to practise overfishing in a totally thoughtless and irresponsible fashion. Furthermore, I also note that only 17 stocks have been covered in EU waters.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report focuses on the report that the Commission is obliged to submit to Parliament and to the Council on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and the Member States’ performance regarding the adjustment of fishing capacity before the end of 2012. Moreover, the Commission had the obligation to report on fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles zones by 31 December 2011. The Commission states that Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks have been insufficient and that there has been equally little progress in the reduction of fleet capacity. The system of fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters is working well and could potentially be extended to a regime of 10-20 miles. Parliament’s position is that, although the establishment of multiannual and recovery plans is widely accepted, overfishing has not been diminished enough. It believes a definition of overcapacity at EU level and a specific definition at regional level are required. It also recognises that the principle of relative stability has encouraged Member States to focus on their own national share rather than on the collective long-term benefit.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. This own-initiative report is satisfactory because it has allowed us to move the debate on the common fisheries policy (CFP) forward, particularly by highlighting the consensus in Parliament on the need to improve data collection, an essential prerequisite if we are to arrive at a sound definition of the CFP’s objectives at a time when the status of some fish stocks is still unknown. However, it is only one vote in the process. This report also points out the need to go in the direction of greater decentralisation, at a time, in particular, when the Commission has stated that there are too many ships in the European fleet compared with available fish stocks. Yet it does not study the realities of each coastline and the different fish stocks found there. The report also notes that one of the prime priorities of the CFP should be jobs, because without fish, there is no fishing, and without fishermen, neither is there any fishing. Finally, Parliament has noted that transferable fishing concessions should be an optional management measure, and recognised that the obligation to land by-catch should be adjusted to the realities of each fishery.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on reporting obligations under Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy.

Over the past decade, a very significant number of jobs have been lost in the European fishing industry because of the poor state of fish stocks, increased production costs, falling prices as a result of cheaper imports, and technological advances. We call on the Commission to provide for the establishment of long-term management plans for all commercial EU fisheries within a highly decentralised management regime which fully involves all relevant stakeholders. The scientific fisheries research is an essential fisheries management tool that is indispensable for identifying factors that influence the development of fishery resources, with a view to carrying out a quantitative assessment and arriving at models that make it possible to forecast the development of those resources, but also for improving fishing gear, vessels and working and safety conditions for fishermen, in conjunction with their knowledge and experience.

We call on the Commission to measure, before the end of 2013, the capacity of European fleets in order to establish where there is overcapacity in relation to the resources available and what reductions/conversions are required.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − This report, which I have supported, calls for a number of measures to promote sustainable fishing in EU waters. Stock conservation is a main concern: the report establishes that there is a direct link between discards and overfishing and thus suggests that a discard ban should be introduced on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Furthermore, fishing paraphernalia should be optimised to eliminate by-catches of juveniles and non-targeted species as much as possible. The suggestions outlined in this report represent an important contribution to the debates surrounding the conservation of fish stocks in the EU.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) It is difficult to overestimate the significance of introducing and overseeing the conservation of fish stocks and sustainable fishing where the whole market related to fisheries is concerned. Many factors are involved, including some beyond our control, such as the climate. It is therefore important that the measures we voted for in Parliament, and my vote was in favour, should come into force as soon as possible in order for the long-term management plan for all EU industrial fisheries to become effective. We should remember that the stability of the future fishing industry will allow new generations of fishermen access to it. Any form of job creation in Europe will always have my support.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The results of the Member States’ efforts to conserve and improve fish stocks to help them recover are few and far between; their failure to fulfil their obligations, especially with regard to reporting, the setting of appropriate reduction targets, and data collection and transmission, is discouraging.

I therefore support Parliament’s position and stress that it is unacceptable for Member States not to present the data needed for valid scientific consultation. On the positive side, however, the system of fishing restrictions within 12-nautical-mile waters has proved to be an efficient way to achieve the objectives of the common fisheries policy.

Nikolaos Salavrakos report (A7-0253/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, although I would point out the importance of the multifunctionality of fisheries for coastal regions. There is a clear need for specific measures for certain regions, such as the island regions and outermost regions. Furthermore and above all, the common fisheries policy should be a holistic, cross-disciplinary and inclusive policy, which is not the case, as some European territories do not share the same sea basins as the European continent. The outermost regions should therefore be grouped together and represented on an advisory committee created specifically for this purpose. Restrictive measures under the common fisheries policy need to be adapted to the actual state of fish stocks. For these reasons, a financial instrument to support the sector must remain in place and continue to be based on the principle of intensifying aid for cofinanced measures in the outermost regions. I also emphasise that transferable fishing concessions could lead to fishing rights being concentrated in the hands of a small number of operators and thus result in the disappearance of numerous small-scale fishing enterprises.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Whilst including many good elements, such as the importance of encouraging new generations to take up fishing, I believe that this report, as an overarching communication does not go far enough to address issues such as discards, overfishing, preserving the rural way of life and sustainability. I think any overarching communication regarding the future of the CFP needs to be clear on these issues and because of this I have abstained.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) The EP resolution on the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) is important for both Lithuanian fishermen and the fishing industry as a whole. I supported two amendments to this document, the first of which proposed allocating subsidies from the EU budget to renovate fishing vessels (these subsidies were suspended in 2002, i.e. before Lithuania joined the EU). The second amendment proposed increasing fish quotas. During the vote in plenary the first amendment was rejected while the second was adopted. The reform of fisheries policy, which was approved in 2002 and which is still being implemented, did not provide the fishing fleets in any of the new EU Member States with subsidies for fleet renewal, putting them in a very difficult position. The majority of vessels that needed to be repaired were broken up. With this reform the old EU Member States eliminated potential competitors from the market, forgetting that fishing is not just a source of jobs and income for people in the new EU Member States, but a tradition and way of life. Lithuanian fishermen suffered damages including financial losses. Unfortunately, the majority of MEPs did not approve the amendment on subsidies for the renewal of fishing vessels in EU Member States. I therefore voted against this document, expressing my opposition to the proposed reform of the EU’s CFP.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the restructuring of the EU’s common fisheries policy (CFP). The goal of restructuring is to move away from excessively intensive fishing and over-fishing while ensuring a livelihood for EU fishermen. It is essential to ensure that by 2015 stocks of all types of fish are not fished beyond a sustainable level and that long-term management plans are established. In order to ensure that the measures chosen better meet regional and local needs, the Member States themselves should choose the most appropriate safeguards. I agree that we need to prohibit the discarding of unwanted fish and ensure that consumers are given all the necessary information about the quality and sustainability of the products they buy. Financial support should be given to environmentally friendly initiatives and a strict control system should be established in order to ensure that illegal activities do not receive funding. Finally, it is important for the EU to encourage compliance with the same principles of good governance throughout the world.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour because it is clear the previous fisheries policy did not fulfil its objectives, given that many species are still being overexploited.

There are profitability issues within the fishing fleet. Appropriate measures should be adopted. We need, therefore, to determine the true fishing effort and capacity in Europe, and the fishing communities should stay close to the levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. This would need to be applied on a regional level, and with the necessary funding from the European Fisheries Fund for the renewal and modernisation of the fleets as part of the restructuring through the implementation of the measures adopted in the common fisheries policy.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Mr Salavrakos because I would like to see the three objectives of this reform fulfilled. First of all, I believe the measures for the conservation of marine resources should be strengthened, for example by creating a voluntary ‘organic quality’ mark, increasing the permitted cofinancing rate, and constantly collecting data to monitor the state of biodiversity in the various European sea basins. I also believe that oil price instability means that the fisheries sector requires strict monitoring and certification of all products placed on the EU market, especially those imported from third countries. Lastly, I am in favour of regionalising the fisheries sector so as to ensure the widespread monitoring and efficient management of every European marine basin.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 11 September 2012, I voted in favour of the report on the overarching communication on the reform of the common fisheries policy. I support in particular the objective of renewing the European fleet with less polluting and safer ships, while reducing their engine power. Otherwise, I oppose any increase in fleet capacity.

  John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark and William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. − This is an own initiative report, which is non-legislative and not binding on the EU Commission. UKIP voted against this although we do agree with ideas such as the use of selective fishing gear, the move towards discards and we share concerns over the proposed system of ‘transferable fishing concessions’ – we cannot support calls for more powers for EU fishing agencies, the creation of EU rules as to how scientists should collect data or EU propaganda campaigns aimed at schoolchildren. The CFP has been an economic and environmental disaster and we supported amendments which will help our fishing industry, but until the CFP is scrapped and fishing regulation is given back to elected governments, our fish stocks and industry will continue to suffer. Fishing regulation should be created by politicians accountable to the people by the ballot box, not the unelected Commission of the EU.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because it considers that the CFP (extractive fisheries and aquaculture sector) needs thorough and ambitious reform if the EU is to ensure long-term environmental sustainability, which is a prerequisite for securing the economic and social viability of the EU fishing and aquaculture sector.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Our votes have shown that the majority of Members did not favour transferable fishing concessions (TFCs) aimed at liberalising the fishing industry. The adopted text still, unfortunately, makes reference to TFCs, but they are now optional. A more watered-down position has also been adopted on the compulsory landing of discards; what is currently under consideration is a gradual implementation on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the different characteristics and realities of the fisheries. While the landing of all incidental catches and by-catches was to be approved in the basic regulation, we have also achieved the guarantee of financial compensation for fishing professionals in the text on the common market organisation. Finally, a compromise was reached in relation to maximum sustainable yield, so that this rate could be applied at the latest in 2020, and not in 2015.

  Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) This report contains a number of positive elements, such as the wording in section 10 regarding Maximum Sustainable Yields (MSY): ‘believes that the objective of achieving MSY … should be implemented immediately’. Unfortunately, there was a rather narrow majority for the following wording in section 9: ‘levels close to those capable of producing maximum sustainable yield’, where, for sustainability reasons – in order to create a better future for the industry and in order to secure fish for consumers – we would have liked wording that says that the stocks are to be re-established to ‘a level higher than that capable of producing maximum sustainable yield’. We will be working towards this in the forthcoming negotiations on the basic regulation.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I wholeheartedly supported Mr Salavrakos’ report on the common fisheries policy. The proposed solution will make it easier to control fishing and to combat illegal fishing. Considering the system of legal sanctions adopted, we can expect greater cooperation between Member States in this regard.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The common fisheries policy (CFP), which has been in place for 20 years, has not enabled us to conserve fish stocks or a balanced ecosystem, no more than it has been able to prevent the economic and social deterioration of an entire industry. There should be a new CFP. In future, the European Union will set a general framework for a policy of the sea and fishing activity, in partnership with the Member States and major coastal areas and, with the assistance of the actors on the ground, solutions will be adjusted locally. The EU and the Member States must provide the producer organisations with the means they need to play a more important role, introducing production and marketing plans, to give them greater influence over distributors. Consumers must also be better protected. That is why producers will be required to put the date of unloading on labels along with other information such as the status of the fish stocks, the catching sector and the fishing methods used. Finally, fishing and aquaculture do not lend themselves to a purely free-trade approach. In international negotiations, fishery products should be considered ‘sensitive products’ in the same way as certain agricultural products.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the reform of the common fisheries policy as it includes measures to ensure the supply of fish to the public and the development of coastal communities, promoting employment and better working conditions for fishing professionals while seeking to establish resources on a sustainable footing, which makes for proper conservation. I believe that any and every fisheries policy should take account of a multitude of dimensions — social, environmental and economic — that require an integrated and balanced approach. This is incompatible with a vision that creates a hierarchy among them according to an a priori definition of priorities.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The world’s oceans and fisheries provide food security and a livelihood for over 500 million people worldwide. It would therefore be useful for the Commission to establish from the outset a definition of overcapacity at EU level which accommodates regional definitions, taking into account local specificities. The reformed common fisheries policy must not be removed from the socio-economic and environmental context in which it exists and it should help to enhance the standard of living of those communities that depend on fisheries, and grant better working conditions for fishermen.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Existing deregulation in the fisheries sector means that an urgent reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) is needed. This cannot be delayed any longer. We must preserve our fisheries resources by protecting stocks. However, this reform cannot be implemented without involving the industry or by working against it. We must promote the sustainability of resources while ensuring jobs and the survival of small fishing communities, which are often responsible for maintaining the planet’s biodiversity. To promote a sustainable fisheries regime, the next CFP should consider: medium- and long-term management plans; a ban on catching young fish and their consequent return to the aquatic environment; a reflagging ban on countries permitting non-sustainable fishing; international cooperation, especially as regards enforcement; the involvement of fishermen’s organisations; and scientific studies on stocks. I voted for this report because we need a CFP that preserves fish stocks but also promotes social sustainability, especially in the midst of a crisis in which job creation is scarce.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report included and still includes positive aspects, which we value. Some of these result from proposals made by our group in the Committee on Fisheries, such as: rejecting the privatisation of fisheries resources; greater consideration of the objectives of a fisheries policy, including social and economic aspects; and increased EU cofinancing for data collection on the status of stocks. Unfortunately, other proposals were weakened or even withdrawn in this vote in plenary. One such example is support for the renovation and modernisation of fishing fleets. The report rejects mandatory transferable fishing concessions, as proposed by the Commission. The report falls far short of what is needed in its review of our centralised common fisheries policy, which has prevailed in the last two decades, and in promoting proximity management, which goes beyond the (inconsequential) ‘regionalisation’ proposals tabled by the Commission and the greater involvement of regional advisory councils. Unfortunately, our proposals in this area were not accepted, inter alia expanding the area reserved for the exclusive access of Member States’ fleets. These shortcomings and contradictions justify our abstention.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − The current common fisheries policy has been much criticised for its impact on EU fish stocks, creating an economically fragile industry. This overarching report encompasses a number of areas, urging the Commission to strengthen its measures concerning marine biological resources, the collection of data, job prospects, socio-economic sustainability and the aquaculture industry. In particular I commend its proposals regarding regionalisation. This will see a move away from micromanagement at EU level and allow regions the necessary flexibility to adapt the proposals to their specific needs. It should also allow greater involvement of industry and stakeholders. Reform to the EU’s common fisheries policy is long overdue. As such, I welcome this report.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) The matter at issue here is the future of the seas. The Salavrakos report deserves to be supported for its long-term perspective on the sustainable development of fishing in the EU, but we cannot allow it to be watered down in this way. I shall explain what I mean by this: Amendment 2, which was adopted with the help of the regionalists who swung the vote, has destroyed the call to allow fish stocks to increase to levels above those capable of producing a maximum sustainable yield (MSY). This means that the EU has failed to meet even the requirements of international law. I therefore ended up voting against this text, for, although it does take account of some important aspects (ceilings for the renewal of fleet, areas for repopulating fish), it does not take sufficient account of numerous points including overfishing and the objectives set by the common fisheries policy.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution on the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) because the fishing industry is of strategic importance in terms of the public supply of fish and the food balance in various Member States and in the European Union itself, and because it makes a considerable contribution to socio-economic well-being in coastal communities, local development, employment, the preservation and creation of economic activities upstream and downstream and the preservation of local cultural traditions. It is vital that the CFP pursues an approach to the fisheries sector that takes into account the biological, ecological, and economic and social dimensions (the three pillars of the CFP reform), so that a compromise is always struck between the state of existing resources in the various maritime areas and protection of the socio-economic fabric of coastal communities that depend on inshore fishing to guarantee jobs and prosperity. It is important to remember that the prime objective of any fisheries policy is to ensure the supply of fish to the public and the development of coastal communities, promoting employment and better working conditions for fishing professionals while seeking to establish resources on a sustainable footing to create the conditions for proper conservation.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Salavrakos. This is an own-initiative report which aims to support the European Commission’s objectives in reforming the common fisheries policy (CFP). The proposed measures aim to increase eco-friendly sustainable fishing, to guarantee the supply of healthy and high-quality fishery products for Europeans, to guarantee the prosperity of coastal communities and the profitability of the fish production and processing industries and finally to improve job attractiveness and security.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I support the opening sentiment in this resolution that the European Parliament ‘considers the prime objective of any fisheries policy to be to ensure the supply of fish to the public and the development of coastal communities, promoting employment and better working conditions for fishing professionals while seeking to establish resources on a sustainable footing which makes for proper conservation’.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report. I agree that the fisheries sector can only remain sustainable if a balance between socio-economic and environmental aspects is found, and if there are sufficient adequately trained and skilled workers. In order to achieve this, careers in fishing need to become attractive.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This text proposes relevant measures with a view to introducing genuinely sustainable fishing. The involvement at all levels, national and local, of fishermen in producer organisations, financial support for the improvement of scientific data on fish stocks and the compilation of statistical data for fishing, financial support for an eco-label, the fight against the elimination of by-catch, financial support to improve the fuel efficiency of the ships, import controls, training of fishermen and the improvement of living conditions on board, the promotion of fish tourism are all measures that I support with the Confederal Group of the European United Left –Nordic Green Left. However this text is not opposed to the adoption of the system of transferable fishing concessions (TFCs), which is particularly harmful to artisanal fisheries. I therefore abstained.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The fisheries debate has taken centre stage in this part-session, starting with this report on the reform of the common fisheries policy.

First it highlights the failure of the measures adopted so far at European level, in that the sector seems not to have responded as required, first by raising employment levels and secondly by depending less on third countries.

Unfortunately neither of these two goals has been achieved, and today the system is facing a really difficult situation. The prospective solutions include a new measure to favour the conservation and improvement of marine biological resources, more rational management of the socio-economic and employment sustainability of the sector, and the call to impose strict rules on non-EU countries that do not comply with certain marine environmental safeguards.

Alongside these measures, regionalisation is proposed as a key principle of fisheries reform. It should result in having greater freedom with regard to various requirements, while fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity. All these reasons have led me to vote for all the reports on fisheries, a sector that still can and must offer a great deal in terms of the environment, food, the economy and employment.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report, which touches upon a series of significant issues related to the fisheries sector in the European Union. Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that the report mentions the need for a new Regional Fisheries Management Organisation for the Black Sea, given that the current competent body, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, is not an adequate framework. Moreover, we need to intensify the dialogue with the Black Sea countries, particularly with regard to the exploitation and conservation of fish stocks.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This overarching communication on the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) was structured around various topics related to the objectives of the reform, namely environmental sustainability (measures for the conservation of marine biological resources, monitoring and collecting quality data), socio-economic sustainability (a future for jobs in the fisheries and aquaculture industry) and regionalisation. I voted unsuccessfully to adopt two amendments to this report that I consider to be important: the possibility of fleet renewal (under certain specific conditions, to adapt vessels to the available resources, ensuring the sustainability of their operations), and the possibility of cofinancing up to 75% to support scientific data collection and processing (which could significantly contribute to strengthened and more efficient fisheries management). Overall, I voted for this overarching communication on the reform of the common fisheries policy.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The common fisheries policy (CFP) needs thorough and ambitious reform if the EU is to ensure the long-term environmental sustainability of the Union’s fisheries and aquaculture sector, which is a prerequisite for securing its economic and social viability as well. To conserve marine biological resources, the CFP must apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management and ensure that the sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources restores and maintains the stocks of all harvested species above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield. I would stress that the fisheries and extensive aquaculture sectors are important direct and indirect sources of job creation for our maritime regions. I voted for the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. The report forms part of the reform package of the Common Fisheries Policy, released last year and which is in full debate in the Fisheries Committee now. It covers the COM's general overview of what it proposes in the CFP reform. The danger, and a bad precedent for the rest of the reform, is a call for the subsidisation of construction and modernisation of fishing vessels. There were many amendments to this effect which were defeated but in the Salavrakos report, one such amendment was adopted. Most groups share our wish to eliminate this paragraph. As the reference to subsidies for vessels was not eliminated, we voted against.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report. Indeed, it should be remembered that the previous common fisheries policy (CFP) did not meet some of its main objectives: many stocks are still overfished, the economic situation of parts of the European fleet is still fragile despite subsidies, jobs are still being lost in the fishing sector, and they are unattractive to young people entering the sector, and the situation of many coastal communities depending on fishing and aquaculture is still precarious.

The prime objective is to ensure the supply of fish to the public and the development of coastal communities, by promoting employment and better working conditions for fishing professionals. I should just like to make the point that if we put the sustainability of stocks on the back burner and if we do not, for example, let stocks which have suffered from overfishing recover we shall soon reach the point of no-return.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that the future common fisheries policy, taking an even-handed approach aimed at mutual reinforcement, should focus on the environmental, social, economic and cultural pillars of fisheries, in order to encourage sustainable development. As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development, I advocate the need for this reform to include specific measures for certain regions such as the outermost regions, whose economies are heavily dependent on the fisheries sector. The fisheries reform in these regions should therefore focus on ensuring the survival and prosperity of small-scale coastal fishing and on achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion objectives, such as promoting employment. I voted for this report in Parliament and I hope that, in the future, this policy responds more adequately to the needs and sensitivities of each sea basin.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the overarching communication on the common fisheries policy (CFP). This non-binding report is acceptable insofar as its content anticipates and influences forthcoming debates on the basic CFP Regulation. It has enabled us to make some progress on the Commission’s proposals, which is important for future negotiations, and which, I hope, will allow for further improvements. In the face of the EU’s very controversial proposal to introduce transferable fishing concessions, a tool for liberalising the fishing industry, Parliament spoke in particular in favour of a voluntary system, allowing Member States to decide whether to implement it or not, which is an encouraging start. Parliament also noted that we should reach the maximum sustainable yield by 2020, and not exceed it, a notion thought to be too vague. The proposal to land all by-catches, which the industry has great difficulty in implementing because of technical constraints, has also been watered down, in favour of a gradual implementation on a case-by-case basis, depending on the characteristics and realities of the different fisheries. There should be further discussion about the technical feasibility of implementing such a measure.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s resolution on the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP). The fishing industry is of strategic importance in terms of the public supply of fish and the food balance in various Member States and in the European Union itself, and it makes a considerable contribution to socio-economic well-being in coastal communities, local development, employment, the preservation and creation of economic activities upstream and downstream and the preservation of local cultural traditions.

The EU is the world’s fourth-biggest producer; nevertheless, the EU imports over 60% of the fish it consumes. I think the CFP must apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management and ensure the sustainable exploitation of living marine biological resources in order to restore and maintain the populations of all stocks of harvested species at levels that are close to those capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. We call on the Commission to provide for the establishment of long-term management plans for all EU fisheries and for the use of the ecosystem approach as a basis for all such plans, with clearly defined objectives and harvest control rules playing a pivotal role in each plan.

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. − (LV) Reform of the common fisheries policy has long been needed to put the governance of fisheries in order so as to ensure sustainable fish stocks, phase out overfishing and ensure income for fishermen in the future. However, a solution should be offered for this scenario which finds a balance between the development of the industry, its impact on the environment, and social interests in the long term. Renovation of fleets does not automatically lead to increased fishing capacity. If a fleet is completely worn out and old, modernisation measures alone are not enough to fulfil the requirements with regard to safety, environmental protection and fuel economy. Therefore, I support using the resources of the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund not only for modernising fleets, but also for renewing them without increasing fishing capacity.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This part-session has provided us with the opportunity to debate this reform, a subject that has been dominating the current negotiations in the fisheries sector.

The Green Paper on the reform of the sector was presented in April 2009. The main aspects were discussed in the course of various Council meetings at which ministers addressed the topic, in order to reach initial agreement on a joint text.

One of the main topics addressed by the text is in my opinion paragraph 58, which calls for the future European Fisheries Fund to offer grants for the renewal and modernisation of fishing fleets in order to achieve the aims of the reform of the common fisheries policy.

The average age of fishing fleets in the EU is currently 27 years. I voted for the amendment, but unfortunately it was not adopted. That is why I felt obliged to vote against the entire report, since I believe the modernisation of the fishing fleet is vitally important on the grounds of safety, environmental protection and fuel economy, as demonstrated in the report.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. − Today I voted wholeheartedly for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Led by British Conservatives, we in the ECR Group have been urging the Commission for a long time to back a policy that moves decision making away from unelected Brussels officials to the people actually doing the job – those engaged in our local fishing industry. We will continue to urge the Commission to back reforms that strengthen measures for the conservation of marine resources, strengthen our British fisheries industry and move away from the current over-centralised system. I have always said that CFP was bad for our fishermen and even worse for the fish. We are achieving some improvement but our eventual goal should be repatriation of CFP.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) In order to improve the situation of the fishing industry (overfishing, poor job prospects etc.), comprehensive reform is needed which will open up new horizons for the fishery policy. At the same time, we must not forget sustainability. We also need to focus on the situation of fishermen and consumers and on the problems of overfishing and accidental by-catches.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Having carefully analysed the reform of the common fisheries policy in view of its strategic significance in terms of providing for the people, I voted in favour of this resolution, fully aware of its consequences. It deserves support because of its provisions regarding sustainable fishing, combating unethical fishing (a number of fish stocks are still overfished), and especially because it takes account of biological, ecological, commercial and social issues. I am convinced that a well supervised fisheries and aquaculture sector will make a major contribution to meeting the needs of the people of Europe.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the own-initiative report in question since I agree with and support the primary objectives of the common fisheries policy reform that it identifies. These include environmental sustainability, socio-economic sustainability and regionalisation. The Committee on Development recalls that an in-depth reform of the EU’s common fisheries policy (CFP) is needed, due to its failure to meet its objectives fully. It should also be emphasised that sustainable fishing will be of huge environmental, social and economic advantage, as the environment will not be degraded, fishing communities will have a secure future, and the fisheries sector will be profitable without need of public support. It is also essential that the CFP is consistent with development and environment policies.