Hakemisto 
 Edellinen 
 Seuraava 
 Koko teksti 
Puheenvuorot
Keskiviikko 20. toukokuuta 2015 - Strasbourg Lopullinen versio

21. Japanin harjoittama valaanpyynti Antarktiksella (keskustelu)
Puheenvuorot videotiedostoina
PV
MPphoto
 

  La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la déclaration du Conseil sur la chasse à la baleine par les Japonais dans l'Antarctique (2015/2702(RSP)).

 
  
MPphoto
 

   Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica,President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, the last point in today’s agenda: Japanese whaling activities in the Antarctic. The issue of Japanese whaling activities in the Antarctic is not new, but it gained new prominence in 2010 when Australia filed an application with the International Court of Justice against Japanʼs programme called JARPA II.

In its application, Australia contested the legality of JARPA II as being incompatible with the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling. The International Court delivered its judgment on 31 March 2014 and found against Japan on a number of counts.

We read this judgment with great interest, as we consider it offers a definitive interpretation of the Convention and its Schedule, and clarifies the legal framework for scientific whaling. It is an important milestone for all contracting governments to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), certainly when it comes to assessing the necessity of having recourse to lethal methods of sampling where non-lethal alternatives exist.

The Presidency, at that time, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, expressed this view at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in September 2014, in Portorož, in Slovenia.

We supported the adoption of Resolution 2014-5, called ‘Whaling under Special Permit’, which offers, among other elements, directions for the Scientific Committee to consider when assessing new and existing special permit research programmes.

Yesterday, the IWC Scientific Committee began its meeting in San Diego. Japan has submitted a proposal for a new special permit research programme in the Antarctic Ocean, which is currently being reviewed under what is known as the ʽAnnex P processʼ.

The findings of the Expert Panel set up by the Scientific Committee will be reviewed and the Scientific Committee should make a recommendation to the IWC. The European Union and its Member States have always favoured an approach that would preserve both the independence of the Scientific Committee, as a scientific forum, and the policy prerogatives of the IWC as the ultimate decision-making authority under the International Convention. Under this approach, policy matters should not be discussed in San Diego.

We remain ready to engage politically with Japan at the appropriate level and in the appropriate forum, once the Scientific Committee has issued its recommendations to the International Whaling Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alojz Peterle, v imenu skupine PPE. Pred dobrim letom smo tu brez glasu proti sprejeli resolucijo v zvezi s pogajanji za sklenitev sporazuma o strateškem partnerstvu med Evropsko zvezo in Japonsko. Z njim želimo določiti številna področja strateškega sodelovanja, med drugim tudi na področju znanosti, okolja, klimatskih sprememb in upravljanja ribjega staleža.

Zdi se mi prav, da postavimo po jasni sodbi Mednarodnega sodišča in odzivu Japonske nanjo vprašanje kitolova tudi v okvir prizadevanj za sklenitev omenjenega sporazuma, v katerem je eno od temeljnih izhodišč spoštovanje in uveljavljanje načel mednarodnega prava. Predpostavljam, da delita Evropska zveza in Japonska tudi mnenje o pomenu biodiverzitete v globalnem okviru.

Pričakujem, da Japonska, tako kot druge države, katerih ribiči še lovijo kite, ne bo sledila samo odločitvi Mednarodnega sodišča, ampak bo svoj znanstveni interes v zvezi s kiti uredila v skladu z mednarodnimi pravili, naraščajočo zavestjo o ogroženosti kitov in s pozornostjo do resolucije Evropskega parlamenta iz leta 2012, v kateri smo se zavzeli za konec kitolova v znanstvene namene.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Renata Briano, a nome del gruppo S&D. Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, provengo da una zona geografica nota per il Santuario dei Cetacei, un'area marina internazionale caratterizzata da una significativa presenza di questi mammiferi, fondamentale dal punto di vista ecologico. Non mi dilungo ulteriormente sull'importanza della loro tutela riconosciuta dall'Unione europea, che ne proibisce la cattura.

Ma non è ovunque così. Il Giappone ha annunciato di voler riprendere il suo programma di uccisione delle balene in Antartide per motivi scientifici, nonostante una sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia dell'Aia che appena un anno fa ha giudicato necessaria la sospensione di questa pratica in quanto priva di fini scientifici, anche perché – diciamolo – le cosiddette prove scientifiche finivano spesso negli scaffali dei supermercati nipponici. Già, non nascondiamoci dietro un dito: dietro la ricerca scientifica si vuole mascherare un'attività prettamente commerciale.

L'intenzione del Giappone, quindi, è palesemente in contrasto con la moratoria internazionale sulla caccia commerciale ai giganti del mare imposta nel 1986 dalla International Whaling Commission, organismo istituito per tutelare i cetacei a rischio di estinzione.

Non possiamo stare a guardare e permettere che questa mattanza abbia ancora luogo con il complice silenzio delle istituzioni. L'Europa si oppone senza se e senza ma. Si discute adesso, in questi giorni, degli accordi commerciali tra UE e Giappone. Ecco, ritengo che anche in quella sede di accordo l'Europa debba essere più ambiziosa e debba imporre come condizione la cessazione di pratiche annoverabili come pesca illegale.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Catherine Bearder, on behalf of the ALDE Group. Madam President, in 1986 the International Whaling Commission adopted a ban on commercial whaling for very good reasons: whales are endangered. However, since then over 30 000 whales have been killed and Japan has contributed to this massacre, because it is one of only three countries continuing to hunt whales.

It justifies this under scientific research, but the rest of the world has always seen this as an excuse to continue whale hunting for food. The ICJ ruled this March that there was a lack of scientific merit in Japan’s whale hunting programs, yet, since the court’s ruling, Japan has announced another 12-year whaling program. It is truly horrifying that Japan continues such practices with no sign of scientific reports; there are just no excuses for the killing of whales.

If it must study, Japan should carry out non-lethal research and stop killing highly endangered species. It is possible and rewarding and much more productive. Japan has plenty of other meat to eat, and as the Japanese have become better informed the demand for whale meat has plummeted, but still Japan continues to subsidise this killing. We and the international community must discourage these barbaric acts. I thank the Council for its actions to get Japan to stop these barbaric practices. The EU trades with Japan and has ties with Japan. What next, then, does the Council plan to say to Japan? Stop now or suffer the consequences?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anja Hazekamp, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. Walvissen zijn al vijftig jaar beschermd en al sinds de jaren tachtig geldt een internationaal verbod op de commerciële walvisjacht. En nu, bijna dertig jaar later, zijn er nog steeds landen die lak hebben aan dat verbod, zoals IJsland, Noorwegen en Japan. Zij jagen onder valse voorwendselen en doden daarbij ieder jaar 1 500 walvissen. En wat heeft Europa gedaan om deze misdrijven te voorkomen? Helemaal niets.

Het wordt tijd dat Europa in actie komt. Veel walvisachtigen worden bedreigd en zullen uitsterven als we nu niets doen. Bovendien is de jacht op walvissen ronduit gruwelijk. Japanse walvisvaarders achtervolgen de dieren tot in de ijzige wateren van de Zuidelijke Oceaan om ze vervolgens een harpoen in hun lijf te schieten. Een lange en gruwelijke doodsstrijd volgt. Dan is er nog een ander punt. In Taiji, Japan, worden jaarlijks vele duizenden dolfijnen een baai ingejaagd, daar bij elkaar gedreven en gedood. Een groot bloedbad is het gevolg!

Ik zou het toejuichen als de Raad met een duidelijk standpunt komt, zoals bijvoorbeeld Nederland al heeft gedaan in de strijd tegen de walvisjacht. De walvisjacht moet stoppen en dat kan ook, als Europa via zijn handelsbeleid druk uitoefent op Japan. En dan ga je dus niet verder onderhandelen over een handelsverdrag, want landen die dieren laten uitsterven om geld te verdienen, die verdienen geen steun.

Voorts ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouwsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marco Affronte, a nome del gruppo EFDD. Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è importante che nazioni come il Giappone rispettino le sentenze della Corte internazionale di giustizia, specialmente su questioni che implicano la gestione di beni comuni. La sentenza della Corte è stata chiara: la caccia alle balene condotta dal Giappone in Antartico non ha fini scientifici e di fatto è illegale.

La proposta del Giappone di riprendere la baleneria non è diversa dal programma precedente ed è dunque contraria nella forma e nello spirito al giudizio espresso dalla Corte. Anche gli esperti della International Whaling Commission hanno dichiarato che la nuova richiesta sottoposta dal Giappone non è scientificamente giustificata.

Questo Parlamento deve spingere la Commissione e tutti gli Stati membri a rendere chiaro al governo del Giappone che ci aspettiamo la sua piena conformità alle sentenze della Corte e alle decisioni della International Whaling Commission e, ovviamente, non ci deve essere alcuna ripresa della caccia alle balene in Antartico nella prossima stagione.

Anche in vista della candidatura del Giappone per il Consiglio di sicurezza, lo stesso Giappone dovrebbe dare il buon esempio e desistere da ogni azione contraria all'ordine internazionale.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gilles Lebreton (NI). Madame la Présidente, le Japon viole le droit international qui interdit, depuis 1986, la chasse commerciale à la baleine. Il continue en effet à pratiquer cette chasse en prétendant qu'il s'agit d'une chasse scientifique. Son objectif serait d'étudier l'âge des baleines pour en découvrir le taux de reproduction. Ce n'est pas crédible, car il n'est pas nécessaire de tuer des baleines pour les étudier, on peut tout simplement les observer par satellite ou avec des caméras sous-marines.

En réalité, le Japon se moque de nous. C'est bien une chasse commerciale qu'il pratique. S'il a tué 11 000 baleines entre 1987 et 2013, c'est pour les manger. La Cour internationale de justice a d'ailleurs ordonné au Japon, le 31 mars 2014, d'arrêter la chasse à la baleine dans l'Antarctique. Le Japon a obéi pendant un an, mais il vient d'annoncer qu'il tuerait 333 baleines dans l'Antarctique en 2015. Il est urgent de faire pression sur le Japon pour le contraindre à respecter le droit international. Il faut protéger les baleines qui, à en croire l'écrivain cubain Enrique Serpa, incarnent la force dans le monde protéiforme de la mer.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jo Leinen (S&D). Frau Präsidentin! Ich glaube, wir sind alle empört, dass es seit 30 Jahren diese Schutzvorschriften für die Wale gibt und sich Japan einfach nicht daran hält. Das ist ein ganz, ganz schlechtes Beispiel für Vertrauen und auch für Solidarität zum Schutz der Arten und des Naturkapitals, und ich frage mich, was denn noch passieren muss, um Japan Einhalt zu gebieten. Die Frage geht natürlich an den Rat und an die Kommission: Was tun wir jetzt? Weiter zugucken, weiter zuhören, oder intervenieren wir? Mit dem politischen und auch ökonomischen Druck, den die Europäische Union ausüben kann, würden wir sicherlich auch noch andere Partner in der Welt finden.

Das wissenschaftliche Programm ist ja eindeutig ein Vorwand. Die meisten Wale landen im Supermarkt und nicht in den Laboratorien. Man weiß das, und trotzdem lässt man sich immer wieder vertrösten – von dem Programm 1, dem Programm 2. Jetzt sind wir bei dem Programm 3, und das Zynische dabei ist, dass bei dem Programm 3 noch 81 Wale mehr getötet werden als bei dem Programm 2. Also offensichtlich ist der Bedarf für die „Wissenschaft“ erheblich gestiegen, obwohl man andere Methoden hat.

Wir haben keine Geduld mehr, und wir fordern die EU auf, jetzt drastischere Maßnahmen gegenüber Japan einzuleiten!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stefan Eck (GUE/NGL). Frau Präsidentin! Je später der Abend, desto interessierter die Zuhörer. Der Saal ist fast leer, aber es geht ja nur um Tiere!

Doch zum Thema: Japan jagt Wale angeblich für wissenschaftliche Zwecke. 2014 hat der Internationale Gerichtshof entschieden, dass Japan den Walfang einstellen muss, weil dies eben nicht wissenschaftlichen Zwecken dient. Die Japaner wollen in diesem Jahr die Waljagd in der Antarktis wieder aufnehmen. Die Fangquote soll sogar erhöht werden: von 252 auf 333 Minkwale.

Die meisten gejagten Walarten sind heute in ihrem Bestand bedroht. Es ist eine Schande, dass angesichts dieser Tatsache Japan und zwei andere Staaten einfach stur weitermachen. Denn wenn diese majestätischen Meeressäuger von der Weltbühne verschwinden, ist die Erde um ein Wunder ärmer geworden. Ich möchte an dieser Stelle meinen Freund, Kapitän Paul Watson, von Sea Shepherd zitieren: „Zuerst stirbt das Meer, dann stirbt der Mensch“.

Der Europäische Rat steht in der Pflicht, alles daran zu setzen, dass Japan den Walfang aufgibt, und zwar komplett.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). Madam President, the matter of whaling activities in Japan is absolutely not of subsidiary importance and cannot be left out in our talks with Japan. Our reason is that the protection of biodiversity and of the environment is at the core of our European principles and values and, if we do not want to be called irresponsible, incoherent and weak, we must always take this into consideration in our relationship with other countries.

This is a matter of having the holistic ambitious and far-sighted view that we owe to European citizens and to the entire world population. Moreover, I believe we must think twice before skipping talks on important matters and before engaging with a partner that does not respect international law. Japan must comply with the spirit and the letter of the International Court of Justice ruling and refrain from further whaling activities in the Antarctic until such time as the International Whaling Commission gives a contrary opinion – all the more so given our shared interest in the rules—based international order and effective multilateralism.

I do not understand nor support the exclusion of an environmental interest in our talks with Japan. We should honestly represent our citizens’ concerns, make their voices heard and solve this issue once and for all. I therefore strongly invite Vice—President Mogherini to raise this issue at the upcoming EU-Japan Summit on 29 May.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). Senhora Presidente, como cientista, como deputado e cidadão, aceito a caça e a pesca mesmo nos casos contrários à minha cultura, mas a caça à baleia japonesa, feita ao abrigo de uma pseudopesquisa científica, não é admissível. Há pareceres de reputados cientistas, emitidos sob a égide da Comissão Baleeira Internacional, que apontam a falta de fundamentação científica da caça japonesa. Ao mesmo tempo, a zona mais meridional do nosso planeta deve ser um local de paz e pesquisa científica, tal como consta no Tratado da Antártida.

Quero ainda referir que o que se passa, anualmente, com os mamíferos marinhos na cidade de Taiji, no Japão, é inaceitável. O uso de animais para a alimentação humana nunca justificará a sua tortura, nem no Japão nem em lado nenhum. Por esta razão, o Japão foi expulso da Associação Mundial de Jardins Zoológicos e Aquários. Nos Açores, em Portugal, a caça à baleia foi há muito abandonada e substituída por uma lucrativa atividade de observação de cetáceos em meio selvagem. Esse é o caminho e o único caminho a seguir em relação aos grandes cetáceos.

 
  
 

Interventions à la demande

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marijana Petir (PPE). Gospođo predsjednice, poštovanje odluke međunarodnoga suda pitanje je zakonitog ponašanja u međunarodnim odnosima. Nepoštovanje odluka međunarodnih tijela upravo je suprotno od toga. Premda je međunarodni sud zabranio kitolov u komercijalne svrhe, ostavio je mogućnost izlova u znanstvene svrhe. Riječ je o pukotini kojom je omogućeno Japanu, ali i Norveškoj i Islandu, da nastave „kontrolirani izlov kitova pod krinkom znanosti”. Ta je pukotina tijekom godina prerasla u pravnu rupu kroz koju, ne da samo jedan kit može proći, već ih može proći više od 10.000 jer ih je upravo toliko izlovljeno.

Pitanje je hoće li Japan, poput Norveške i Islanda, pronaći način da poput svojih međunarodnih partnera, koji su mu omogućili nastavak tzv. „kontroliranog ulova”, ne zloupotrebljava dobru vjeru ostatka međunarodne zajednice.

Naš je problem, problem Europske unije, kako ćemo reagirati na kršenje odluke međunarodnog suda. Ignoriranje problema neće pomoći niti kitovima, niti Japanu, a niti međunarodnom pravu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). Κυρία Πρόεδρε, παρότι από το 1986 η εμπορική φαλαινοθηρία έχει απαγορευθεί σε διεθνές επίπεδο, τα ιαπωνικά φαλαινοθηρικά συνέχιζαν να εξολοθρεύουν 1000 φάλαινες κάθε χρόνο, χρησιμοποιώντας τα «παραθυράκια» της διεθνούς νομοθεσίας περί φαλαινοθηρίας για "δήθεν" επιστημονικούς σκοπούς.

Πριν ένα χρόνο, το Διεθνές Δικαστήριο της Χάγης, με μια πρωτοπόρα απόφαση, απαγόρευσε τη φαλαινοθηρία, αποφασίζοντας ότι το επιστημονικό πρόγραμμα JARPA II ήταν μια βιτρίνα για να συνεχίσει η Ιαπωνία την εμπορική φαλαινοθηρία.

Τώρα η Ιαπωνία προσπαθεί να λάβει εξαίρεση για την ερχόμενη αλιευτική περίοδο από τη διεθνή επιτροπή φαλαινοθηρίας, για να συνεχίσει κάτω από τον μανδύα της "δήθεν" επιστημονικής έρευνας για φαλαινοθηρικούς σκοπούς, ενώ, στην πράξη, αυτό που κάνει είναι να προχωρήσει σε φαλαινοθηρία για εμπορικούς σκοπούς στην Ανταρκτική. Και αυτό είναι κάτι που δεν θα πρέπει να το επιτρέψει η διεθνής κοινότητα.

Για τον λόγο αυτό, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να λάβει αποφασιστικά μέτρα για να σταματήσει την ιαπωνική φαλαινοθηρία στην Ανταρκτική.

 
  
 

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica, President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, the EU and its Member States are strongly committed to the protection of whales. As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgment of March 2014 has, in our opinion, offered the definitive interpretation of the Convention and the schedule when it comes to scientific whaling.

It is expected that the Scientific Committee, following Resolution 2014-5, will also put forward a proposal to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) on the update of the Annex P procedure in order to fully take into account the findings of the ICJ in its judgment.

We are following these developments closely and remain ready to engage with all other IWC parties in discussing how best to enhance the conservation status of whales worldwide and how to bring all whaling operations within the IWC.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. I am strongly opposed to the hunting of cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises). I believe the hunting of these creatures involves unacceptable cruelty and that well-managed, responsible tourism is the only truly sustainable use of these animals. I therefore strongly support the maintenance of the International Whaling Commission’s global moratorium on commercial whaling. Japan is legally bound by the IWC moratorium yet carries out large-scale whaling for so called ‘scientific research’. There is no valid scientific or other reason for these hunts and I urge Japan to cease its activities immediately. Japan does great harm to its reputation by carrying on these hunts and is undermining the global moratorium on commercial whaling.

 
Oikeudellinen huomautus - Tietosuojakäytäntö