Dobesedni zapisi razprav

Ponedeljek, 27. april 2015 - Strasbourg

18. Večletni načrt za staleže trske, sleda in papaline v Baltskem morju ter ribištvo, ki izkorišča te staleže (razprava)

  elnök asszony. – A következő napirendi pont a Jarosław Wałęsa által a Halászati Bizottság nevében készített, a közönséges tőkehal, a hering és a spratt balti-tengeri állományaira és a halászatukra vonatkozó többéves terv létrehozásáról szóló európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletre irányuló javaslatról folytatott vita ((COM(2014)0614 – C8-0174/2014 – 2014/0285(COD)).

  Jarosław Wałęsa, rapporteur. – Madam President, this multi-species plan has been long awaited. I believe this approach is much more effective than management based on a single species. It aims to take account of interspecies interactions, such as the influence of the cod stock on herring and sprat stocks, and the other way around.

The plan should provide for a balanced, sustainable exploitation of these stocks and for the stability of fishing opportunities and thereby the livelihoods of fishers. At the same time, it should guarantee that management is based on the most up-to-date scientific advice regarding the status of the stocks covered, interactions between species and other aspects related to the ecosystem and fisheries.

The most controversial part of this dossier concerns the scientific advice, namely target fishing mortality ranges as set out in Article 4 and Article 5. To explain to our non-fisheries Members, those ranges will indicate how much fish fishermen will be allowed to fish. Obviously the smaller the range of values, the smaller the amount of fish; and the broader the range, the more flexibility for the sector from one year to another.

Values in the Commission’s proposals are provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) which is the scientific advisory body of the Commission. These figures are advised after careful analysis of all available data and applying scientifically reviewed and tested models. Some may say that the values of those ranges provided by the Commission were not in line with the reformed common fisheries policy (CFP). Frankly, that is partly true. They are not yet in line, but only because we have until 2020 to reach the targets set out in the reform. The basic regulation says: ‘In order to reach the objective of [...] restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks.’ So we have five years to fulfil the obligation of the reform of the CFP.

While setting fishing mortality targets, we should also take into account the most recent scientific advice. Let us not forget that we are politicians; we are not scientists. We should not play around with arbitrary formulas. We should listen to the scientists and wisely use their advice.

At the same time, I want to dispel some doubts. It is probable that future plans will be modelled on the Baltic Plan, but only in terms of structure. In terms of content, the principle of regionalisation will be applied. Therefore what we adopt for the Baltic cannot be copied for the Mediterranean or the North Sea. This also includes the targets.

However, on the contrary, accepting arbitrary formulas would create a very dangerous precedent. This means that such an approach would also be used in other future plans for the North Sea or the Mediterranean Sea. How are we going to explain this to the fishermen? Many amendments have been tabled asking to follow the most scientific advice and this is exactly what I try to do. I want to use the FMSY (fishing mortality consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield) figures advised by the scientific body, ICES, wisely.

Finally, I would also like to underline that I am against including seabirds and sea mammals in the text of the Fisheries Management Plan because we have different legislation for that. Let us not experiment with the Baltic. Let us follow science. Let us not mix the legislation and let us not confuse politics with science.

  Karmenu Vella, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Wałęsa, and all the Members of this House, who have contributed to the quality of the work on the Baltic management plan which was done in, I would say, a very short time. This is a big step forward for the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy and I am very happy that, again, Parliament has taken the lead in making that step possible.

With your vote this week we will come one step closer to a modern fisheries policy that our citizens and the fishing sector can understand and support. The Council, under the Latvian Presidency, has also made considerable progress. Last Monday, it adopted its general approach on the Commission’s proposal. I believe that by maintaining this momentum we can finalise the plan by the end of this year.

This is the first multiannual fisheries management plan after the adoption of the new Common Fisheries Policy. We have to make this plan work to prove that the reform, as intended, can bring benefits to our fishermen, increase their income and provide for the sustainability of the fish resources. Those benefits include regional decision-making by those who know the regions best. They include more flexibility in setting fishing opportunities, and they include sustainability of the fish stocks on which local stakeholders rely.

Allow me now to make a few comments on the report that you will adopt this week. As a Commissioner not only for fisheries but also for the environment, I welcome the amendments to include references to the Union environmental legislation. I believe this will strengthen the coherence between our two policies. I would also like to stress that the scientific advice has always been, and will always remain, the core element for decision-making in fisheries management. This is something that we must base our decisions upon when we manage our fisheries. The Commission has always followed the most recent and the most up-to-date scientific advice, as has already been mentioned by the rapporteur Mr Wałęsa, and I can assure you it will continue to do so.

I am certain we will have an interesting, lively and constructive debate and hopefully we can make good progress very soon after this week’s vote, but let me say one more thing. This plan is not only very important for the Baltic region and the countries that are directly concerned, but it will also be a positive precedent for other management plans to be adopted in the future. So let us work together to reach our shared objectives of our common fisheries policy.

  Gabriel Mato, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora Presidenta, querido Comisario, el plan del Báltico es especialmente relevante por muchas razones, entre otras, por su necesaria adaptación a un nuevo marco competencial establecido en el Tratado de Lisboa, a lo que hay que añadir que es el primero que aprobamos con la nueva política pesquera común y que, además, contempla el recién estrenado concepto de regionalización.

Es evidente que estamos ante un plan que tiene que aplicarse en un área geográfica específica y con unas características de pesca particulares, pero también que puede marcar de alguna manera el futuro de otros planes, y, por eso, tenemos que asegurarnos de que hacemos las cosas bien.

Se apuesta por una gestión a largo plazo en lugar de por planificaciones anuales, lo que permitirá a los pescadores hacer sus previsiones a la vez que garantizamos que siempre se pesque de acuerdo con la capacidad de capturas del Báltico.

El ponente ha intentado mantener un equilibrio entre los poderes haciendo propuestas con fundamento científico y presentando una solución respecto al objetivo de mortalidad por pesca, una solución sensata que garantiza un equilibrio y que choca frontalmente con quienes proponen, de forma arbitraria y sin fundamento científico alguno, reducciones porcentuales que ignoran factores que deben tenerse en cuenta. Mantengamos una posición razonable en este tema, porque aquí lo importante es asegurar el presente y el futuro de un ecosistema tan sensible como el mar Báltico a la vez que damos a nuestros pescadores un marco más estable y seguro que les permita garantizar su actividad en el futuro.

  Ulrike Rodust, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Gemäß der Grundverordnung sind Mehrjahrespläne ein Werkzeug, ein Anker für die nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung von Fischbeständen und dem Ökosystem. Das ist der erste Vorschlag für einen Mehrjahresplan nach Inkrafttreten der neuen GFP-Reform und zugleich eine Blaupause für nachfolgende Pläne. Der Vorschlag der Kommission für einen Mehrjahresplan für Dorsch, Hering und Sprotte in der Ostsee erfüllt nicht in allen Teilen die Ziele der Reform. Wir wollen keine Verwässerung der GFP, sondern eine Verbesserung.

Entgegen der GFP-Reform führt Artikel 3 – Ziele des Vorschlags – nicht das Ziel an, die Fischpopulation oberhalb eines Biomasseniveaus, das den MSY garantiert, wieder aufzufüllen und zu erhalten. In der Begründung der Kommission sind die Wechselwirkungen zwischen diesen Beständen – Dorsch, Hering und Sprotte – und den weiteren Ökosystemen nicht explizit berücksichtigt.

Strittiger Punkt ist der Artikel 4 – Zielwerte. Hier wollen wir erreichen, dass der Zielwert für die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit begrenzt wird. Gut ist, dass der Kommissionsvorschlag keine jährliche Beschränkung des Fischereiaufwands beinhaltet. Damit ist die von den Fischern oft beklagte Beschränkung der Zahl von Fangtagen, die nicht überschritten werden dürfen, endlich vom Tisch.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Na wstępie chciałbym bardzo pogratulować posłowi sprawozdawcy ogromnego zaangażowania przy przygotowaniu omawianego sprawozdania. Daje ono ostatnią szansę odbudowy zasobów Bałtyku oraz prawidłowej ochrony gatunkowej. Należy przypomnieć, że do tej pory chociażby szprot był traktowany jako szkodnik, negatywnie wpływający na populację dorsza z powodu odżywiania się jego ikrą. Wyławiany był w sposób niekontrolowany na potrzeby przemysłowe. Przerwano w ten sposób łańcuch pokarmowy i doprowadzono do zapaści populacji dorsza i gatunków pelagicznych. Jedynym sposobem odbudowy zasobów Bałtyku jest czasowe zaprzestanie wszelkich połowów i wprowadzenie programów ochronnych i rekompensujących dla rybaków. To jedyny sposób na zagwarantowanie i zachowanie rybołówstwa, przede wszystkich rodzinnego, przy jednoczesnym zagwarantowaniu jego rozwoju. W świetle dotychczasowej fatalnie prowadzonej polityki Unia Europejska jest odpowiedzialna za ochronę środowiska i wspomaganie rybołówstwa, przede wszystkim rybołówstwa rodzinnego.

  Nils Torvalds, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to start by thanking my colleague Mr Wałęsa for his work. Here we have all the fighters from the reform of the common fisheries policy, with Mrs Rodust and Gabriel Mato and Mr Gróbarczyk. I think this is a great step forward because we know that the plan for the Baltic will be a blueprint for the rest of the multi-species plans to be made. We have therefore been very careful to produce a report that can serve as the blueprint and we have therefore been very careful with the facts and background work.

I would just like to add that I have tabled an amendment just to get the latest scientific figures into the report.

VORSITZ: ULRIKE LUNACEK
Vizepräsidentin

  Anja Hazekamp, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – De Oostzee is een uniek gebied. Tegelijkertijd zien we daar ook het trieste toonbeeld van het Europese visserijbeleid. Alles wat daarmee mis is, zien we in de Oostzee. De trend is er al jarenlang hetzelfde: elk jaar minder vissen! De biodiversiteit gaat er nog steeds achteruit.

Vrijwel alle vispopulaties worden overbevist. De kabeljauw, bijvoorbeeld, wordt daardoor zelfs ernstig in zijn voortbestaan bedreigd. Keer op keer stellen lidstaten vangstlimieten vast die veel hoger liggen dan de wetenschappelijke adviezen. We hopen dat met dit voorstel dáár in ieder geval een eind aan komt.

Alsof overbevissing nog niet genoeg is, zien we dat ook andere milieueffecten de biodiversiteit in de Oostzee bedreigen, bijvoorbeeld dierlijke mest, die ervoor zorgt dat er heel veel algen kunnen groeien. Ook daarom ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouw- en visserijsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.

  Linnéa Engström, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Fru talman! Många av oss här idag vill att Östersjön ska bli ett friskt hav igen. Man ska kunna äta närfångad torsk utan att behöva oroa sig för att den håller på att försvinna.

Det har redan tagits stora steg för att detta ska kunna bli verklighet. Efter en lång strid enades Europas politiker härom året om att vi måste stoppa överfisket. Alla vi som har varit med och kämpat för EU:s nya fiskelag som säger att man inte får fiska mer än havet tål är stolta och vill se politisk handlingskraft i samma riktning.

Vi är på rätt väg men det finns mycket kvar att göra. Torsken i Östersjön mår inte bra. Efter en positiv utveckling under några år minskar nu antalet torskar igen. De som finns är små och magra. Det går att vända trenden om alla länder runt vårt känsliga innanhav samarbetar.

Genom att minska fisket under ett antal år ger vi torsken en chans att återhämta sig. Det är viktigt att ta ett helhetsgrepp som tar hänsyn till att alla arter i havet påverkar varandra, så att man t.ex. inte berövar de större rovfiskarna deras mat.

Nu ska EU anta en förvaltningsplan för torsk, strömming och skarpsill i Östersjön. För oss är det självklart att planen ska leda till ett hållbart fiske och en långsiktigt god havsmiljö. Vi har därför lagt förslag som går ut på att fångsterna av fisk ska ligga på sådana nivåer att fiskbestånden kan växa sig större. Men inte alla våra kollegor i Europaparlamentet och ministerrådet håller med. Det finns starka krafter som motverkar ett hållbart fiske.

Östersjöplanen kommer att bli en modell för kommande förvaltningsplaner i olika havsområden i EU. Därför är det extra viktigt att det blir rätt den här gången.

  Marco Affronte, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i piani pluriennali così come previsti dalla politica comune della pesca hanno l'obiettivo di ricostituire e mantenere gli stock ittici al di sopra dei livelli in grado di produrre il rendimento massimo sostenibile, è un punto fondamentale della politica comune, un approccio alla gestione della pesca dal quale non possiamo più prescindere.

Il piano pluriennale per il Baltico rappresenta la prima applicazione di questo tipo ed è dunque un importante banco di prova per i piani pluriennali che seguiranno. Introduce concetti nuovi come un approccio ecosistemico, sebbene non completamente recepito come appunto il massimo rendimento sostenibile. Il Parlamento europeo, almeno in buona parte, sembra aver recepito questo spirito, al contrario a quanto pare del Consiglio, che affronta sfide nuove ma guardando al passato, dimenticando che proprio l'atteggiamento e l'idea di considerare le risorse ittiche come se fossero infinite ha portato alla situazione di grave crisi degli stock e della pesca stessa.

Con il voto di domani dobbiamo sostenere fermamente la posizione del Paramento europeo e mostrare che la svolta della politica comune della pesca è reale e l'obiettivo di porre fine alla pesca eccessiva è possibile.

(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu" (articolo 162, paragrafo 8, del regolamento))

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE), pitanje koje je podizanjem plave kartice postavio. – Gospođo predsjednice, poštovani gospodine zastupniče, hvala što ste prihvatili plavu kartu. Htio bih vas pitati nakon pažljivog slušanja. Rekli ste da je Baltičko more kao prvi takav jedan primjer jednoga sveobuhvatnog pristupa izlovu i korištenju resursa koji postoje na Baltiku. Da li mislite, kao i ja, da bi takav sličan pristup trebao biti i za Jadransko more, koje je malo, zatvoreno more, gdje bi zaista trebali imati principe izlova svih vrsta i zaista znanstveni pristup kako bi sačuvali resurse na jednom malom zatvorenom moru kao što je Jadran?

  Marco Affronte (EFDD), Risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – La ringrazio per la domanda, perché io vivo sull'Adriatico, sono di Rimini, vivo sulla costa adriatica, quindi assolutamente ritengo che il modello che noi stiamo cominciando a costruire e che abbiamo appunto utilizzato come banco di prova nel Mar Baltico, debba, pian piano, essere implementato con i piani pluriennali anche in altri bacini, in particolare nel Mediterraneo dove la situazione della pesca eccessiva è molto, molto grave e anche per i bacini più piccoli, ma molto pescati, come l'Adriatico.

  Sylvie Goddyn (NI). – Madame la Présidente, quelques mots pour dire que ce plan pour le cabillaud, le hareng et le sprat a, en quelque sorte, les défauts de ses qualités.

Comme il s'agit de sauver les stocks menacés, ce plan se veut assez drastique, ce qui peut évidemment se comprendre. Mais il est difficile d'admettre le recours trop fréquent aux actes délégués par le Parlement à la Commission européenne. Ce plan est, à cet égard, symptomatique d'un Parlement qui renonce à ses prérogatives pour les confier à la Commission. Quant aux États membres, ils sont eux-mêmes écartés des prises de décision, en dépit du principe de régionalisation de la politique commune de la pêche.

Nous nous méfions donc particulièrement des mesures techniques que la Commission serait amenée à adopter sans toujours disposer d'études scientifiques pertinentes et régulièrement actualisées.

  Werner Kuhn (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Kommissar Vella! Herzlichen Dank an den Kollegen Wałęsa, der hier gute Arbeit geleistet hat. Die gemeinsame Fischereipolitik für die nächsten zehn bis fünfzehn Jahre braucht natürlich auch verlässliche und vernünftige Managementpläne. Das ist kein Zauberwerk, das man hier in Angriff nimmt, sondern das ist klare Zusammenarbeit des Berufsstandes mit der Wissenschaft. Und nur auf wissenschaftlicher Basis kann man die einzelnen Bestände vernünftig beurteilen. Dafür haben wir Institute und haben Fischerei- und Meeresbiologen, die für Sprotte, für Hering und auch für den Dorsch die Grundlagen liefern.

Und dann haben wir eben den fischereilichen MSY-Standard, den wir einhalten wollen. Darum geht es im Prinzip. Die Fischer haben in den letzten Jahren schon enorme Quotenkürzungen hinnehmen müssen und haben die Bestände mittlerweile auch auf einem solchen Niveau, dass sie vernünftig befischt und auch nachhaltig befischt werden können, und dieser Mehrarten-Mehrjahresplan ist ganz wichtig, damit es hier keine überzogenen Forderungen mit 0,8 MSY etc. gibt, sondern in der Praxis umsetzbare.

  Ole Christensen (S&D). – Fru formand! Jeg er glad for, at vi i denne uge kan stemme om to vigtige stykker lovgivning. Det glæder mig, at vi har fået en forholdsvis hurtig behandling af den flerårige forvaltningsplan for Østersøen klar. Nu skal vi kigge fremad mod udarbejdelsen af de nye tekniske foranstaltninger, nye planer for udsmid og nye forvaltningsplaner. Vi skal i den forbindelse blive bedre til at tage de regionale rådgivende organer med på råd, og vi skal sørge for, at fiskerne får så meget ansvar og frihed i forhold til redskabsvalg som muligt. Når vi har fiskeriet underlagt landingsforpligtelsen og dermed fuld dokumenteret fiskeri, så har fiskerne al mulig grund til at være så selektive som muligt. Derfor bør vi give dem ansvar i stedet for at detailregulere. Det håber jeg kommer til at afspejle sig endnu tydeligere i de kommende forvaltningsplaner samt i reglerne for tekniske foranstaltninger og for udsmid. Jeg lykønsker ordføreren med det fine og hurtige stykke arbejde.

  Louise Bours (EFDD). – Madam President, the Common Fisheries Policy is a bad policy. It is impractical and unsustainable and that is as true in the Baltic as anywhere else. This new law shows us the future as the EU sees it: a regional management plan for a virtually closed body of water. So we must ask whether it will work.

It remains collectivised; it is treated as a common resource; it retains the concept of a maximum sustainable yield, taking little or no account of subsidy or illegality or the simple fact that if you try to operate at the limit of its sustainability you have no margin of error. What is needed is restoration of national property rights, so countries can move to a maximum economic yield – a topic where the Australians are pioneering some new sensible thinking. With fishing, as with immigration, the Australians are showing us the way and there is probably much that we can learn from them. But, as so often, the EU is likely to be deaf to reason.

  Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, antes de mais quero saudar o relator, o Senhor Walesa, pelo trabalho realizado e pelo diálogo. Os Estados-Membros da União Europeia comprometeram-se em 2002, em Joanesburgo, a manter e restaurar os mananciais de pescado a níveis que possam produzir um rendimento máximo sustentável, numa base tão urgente quanto possível, e não mais tardar do que em 2015. Amanhã estará em votação o primeiro plano multianual e é nossa obrigação tornar esse precedente preciso e adequado.

Muitos dos stocks de pescado precisam de reconstituir a sua biomassa. Assim, a taxa de pesca tem que ser estabelecida num nível de mortalidade de captura máximo sustentável, que assegure que o rendimento económico atual não prejudique a sua estabilidade para o futuro.

Para assegurar que o rendimento máximo sustentável seja resiliente, convém utilizar uma abordagem precaucionaria mantendo as capturas em níveis de 10 a 20% abaixo da taxa máxima calculada para a mortalidade por pesca.

A definição de um objetivo que aponta para 80% da mortalidade por pesca prevista para manter o máximo rendimento sustentável permitirá assegurar mais futuro ao que foi prometido em 2002.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Richard Corbett (S&D). – Madam President, the multiannual plans under the new common fisheries policy (CFP) must meet the ambition of restoring stocks of fish by setting maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels plus a safety margin. MSY can at best be an estimate based on scientific advice. If we get it wrong on one side it has disastrous consequences. If we get it wrong on the other side it still gives us the possibility to come back beneficially. That is why we must always ensure in these plans that we have maximum sustainable yield calculated at a level that is sustainable, even if we get it wrong. An extra safety margin keeping stocks above MSY level is essential, in this and in all aspects of implementing the reform of the common fisheries policy.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, htio bih naglasiti tri ključna elementa koja ovdje danas imamo na stolu. Prvo, odličan je pristup da imamo višegodišnji plan i da znamo točno što ćemo činiti narednih godina jer to je odlična poruka ribarskoj industriji i svim onima koji se bave ribarstvom. Drugo, smatram da je iznimno važno to što se napokon pristupilo činjenici da se paralelno izučavaju i uvode kvote za više vrsta riba jer to je jedini ispravni način. Prijašnji model gdje se praktički govorilo o izlovu jedne vrste riba nije dovoljan. Dakle, i to je nešto što je u ovom slučaju jako dobro. Treći važan princip upravo je regionalizacija izlova ribe u europskim morima. Naime, prije sam spominjao Jadransko more kao malo, zatvoreno more, kao što je i Baltičko more, i trebamo imati posebni senzibilitet za mala i posebno za zatvorena mora.

  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Tudi meni se zdi ta večletni načrt za Baltsko morje izjemen... izjemno pomembno, posebej če seveda sledi tudi znanstvenim odkritjem, dokazom in pa seveda tudi nasvetom.

Mislim, da je lahko dober primer, kako je treba zagotavljati trajnostni ribolov, kako pri tem varovati tudi okolje in kako preprečiti prekomeren izlov. In mislim, da ravno to je potrebno dodati: ribi ne grozi seveda samo prekomerni izlov, ribi grozi predvsem onesnaženje. Onesnaženje, ki ga povzročamo ljudje.

In ta primer tega večletnega načrta je lahko primer tudi dobre prakse za druga morja in če omenim samo Jadransko morje, kot je bilo rečeno, tudi tam bodo potrebni določeni ukrepi. Predvsem pa to, da se prepove oziroma omeji kakršno koli črpanje nafte v Jadranskem morju kot zaprtemu morju, ker to pa resno trajno lahko ogrozi ribištvo in če se tu zmotimo, potem ne bo več kaj lovit in kaj načrtovat.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Karmenu Vella, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank everyone for this constructive debate which has shown that there is a relatively large convergence of views. I would like briefly to reply to some more specific points which were raised by some of the honourable Members.

First of all, I totally agree with the statement that we are politicians and we should listen, we should rely more on scientific advice for guidance and this is exactly what we are doing in this plan.

With regard to some of the comments made about the Commission proposal, I would like to highlight that the situation with the Baltic sea stocks is quite good. Five stocks out of seven are at maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The Commission, together with the Member States, used to establish fishing opportunities delivering high biomass levels. Now that all the stocks are in good shape and low fishing effort may then cause reduced growth, to avoid this it should be possible to fish temporarily above the MSY. But this is something that ICES has confirmed and we are still adhering to the precautionary approach. I think this point was also mentioned by Richard Corbett.

I also agree with the point raised that different areas, different regions, obviously have different particularities and we cannot adopt exactly the same approach in the Mediterranean as we are adopting in the Baltic. As was mentioned, this is a great step forward and using the same words as were already said, a blueprint for the other multiannual plans.

One Member said that hopefully this will become a reality. It is important now that this plan is implemented so that it becomes a reality, but to become a reality, implementation is of the utmost importance. I do have faith however in the stakeholders in this region.

Mr Mato again spoke about the importance of taking the long-term approach rather than simply the annual approach, and I think that this is very important. This is one of the strengths of the multiannual plans. Again, the Baltic is a very sensitive ecosystem that we need to protect, and this is always kept at the forefront as one of the priorities. With regard to the long-term approach, ICES stated that the ranges are considered applicable for at least the next five years.

To Ms Hazekamp I would say that yes, unfortunately biodiversity is being threatened: not only that of cod but of most species unless we continue, or unless we make it a point that we need, to fish sustainably. Again this is in the proposal and that will help us to rectify this situation.

Mr Affronte, who I know made a very good contribution to all this, said too that this is a test for other multiannual plans. Yes, it is, and that is why we have to get this one right because if we want to look forward to other multiannual plans then we have to get it right first and foremost. I agree with what Mr Santos said as well: that this Parliament is committed to the common fisheries policy reaching its objectives.

Other points were raised and obviously we have taken note of these points, but to conclude I can only hope that after the Council’s general approach last week and after your vote this week, we will soon be able to engage in trilogue negotiations so that we can hopefully reach a political agreement during the period of the present Presidency, the period of the Latvian Presidency. This would then allow us formally to adopt the plan this year which would be an important political signal for the upcoming future regional management plans. I would like to thank each and every one of you for your support in coming up with this plan.

  Jarosław Wałęsa, rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to thank everyone for their contribution throughout the process of our work and in today’s debate, even those with whom I strongly disagree.

I would like to remind you of a very important point. I believe we have to stay true to our word, the word we gave last year when we voted in the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP). In it we understood and we agreed that we should reach certain levels, levels of FMSY (fishing mortality consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield), levels above MSY, and those levels should be reached by the year 2020. Starting from this year, we should do our best to work in a correct manner in a steady process of ensuring that those levels are reached.

I believe that by tabling certain amendments we are trying to achieve something right now – this year – which is going against the word we have given to the fishermen. Please remember that the common fisheries policy and this multiannual plan and all other multiannual plans are there to create a more stable framework for the future of the fishermen. When we pass certain legislation in this House they have to believe that we want to do everything in our power to ensure that there is plenty of fish in the sea and there remains plenty of work for them to do.

And as such I would like to ask you to support my amendment tomorrow on the ranges from 0 to FMSY, with the note that we will do everything in our power to reach levels below FMSY as soon as possible.

Please remember also that this dossier contains a revision clause which is supposed to be applied in three years’ time, so even if we reach the levels by then we still have two more years to reach the levels that are in agreement with the basic regulations.

Please support me tomorrow and once again thank you very much for your help.

  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Dienstag, 28. April, statt.