Teljes szöveg 
Eljárás : 2016/2600(RSP)
A dokumentum állapota a plenáris ülésen
Válasszon egy dokumentumot :

Előterjesztett szövegek :

O-000058/2016 (B8-0702/2016)

Viták :

PV 08/06/2016 - 25
CRE 08/06/2016 - 25

Szavazatok :

PV 06/07/2016 - 6.13

Elfogadott szövegek :

Az ülések szó szerinti jegyzőkönyve
2016. június 8., Szerda - Strasbourg Lektorált változat

25. Japán döntése a bálnavadászat újrakezdéséről a 2015–2016-os idényben (vita)
A felszólalásokról készült videofelvételek

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad:

– pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Rady przez Renate Sommer, Renatę Briano, Julie Girling, Frédérique Ries, Stefana Ecka, Linnéę Engström, Marco Affronte w imieniu Komisji Ochrony Środowiska Naturalnego, Zdrowia Publicznego i Bezpieczeństwa Żywności w sprawie decyzji Japonii o wznowieniu polowań na wieloryby w sezonie 2015–2016 (O-000058/2016 - B8-0702/2016) oraz

– pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Komisji przez Renate Sommer, Renatę Briano, Julie Girling, Frédérique Ries, Stefana Ecka, Linnéę Engström, Marco Affronte w imieniu Komisji Ochrony Środowiska Naturalnego, Zdrowia Publicznego i Bezpieczeństwa Żywności w sprawie decyzji Japonii o wznowieniu polowań na wieloryby w sezonie 2015–2016 (O-000059/2016 - B8-0703/2016).


  Giovanni La Via, Autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Vicepresidente Katainen, signor Ministro, presento l'interrogazione orale a nome della commissione per l'ambiente.

Come vi è noto, nel novembre del 2015 l'agenzia giapponese per la pesca ha comunicato alla Commissione internazionale per la caccia alle balene di aver ripreso la caccia nell'ambito di un nuovo programma. Il piano, che si sviluppa su un periodo di 12 anni, porterebbe all'uccisione di 333 esemplari di balenottera rostrata, durante la stagione 2015-2016, e di un totale di circa 4 000 balene nell'arco dei 12 anni di durata del programma.

Con tale decisione di riprendere la caccia alla balena, il Giappone ignora chiaramente la sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia che, nella sua decisione del 31 marzo 2014, imponeva al Giappone di interrompere la sua strage annuale di balene nell'Oceano Antartico. La caccia alle balene è infatti una tradizione molto antica in diversi paesi, e in Giappone viene praticata da migliaia di anni. Ma negli anni Ottanta è diventata palese la necessità di interrompere l'uccisione indiscriminata dei cetacei, che è stata vietata al fine di evitare lo sterminio della specie. Dal 1986, quando è entrata in vigore la moratoria della commissione internazionale per la caccia alle balene, la caccia commerciale è illegale anche in Giappone. Ma già dall'anno successivo il Giappone ha continuato, in barba alla sentenza della Corte, a uccidere questi animali, sfruttando impropriamente una scappatoia della Commissione baleniera internazionale, che prevedeva la possibilità di attivare programmi di ricerca scientifica quale motivazione per l'uccisione delle balene.

Ma come a tutti voi è noto, la Corte internazionale di giustizia ha concluso che, nel caso in specie, la caccia alla balena non è condotta ai fini della ricerca scientifica, come invece diversamente sostenuto dalle autorità e dal governo giapponese. La caccia alle balene ripresa dalle autorità giapponesi costituisce dunque una violazione del diritto internazionale e minaccia la tutela della biodiversità e degli ecosistemi marini. Inoltre, la stessa eccezione presentata dal Giappone oggi verrebbe meno, considerato che la stessa ricerca scientifica non consente più di sterminare le balene.

In tale contesto, pertanto, accoglieremmo con favore una risposta della Commissione e del Consiglio ai seguenti interrogativi: a parte la démarche che cofirmerà la delegazione dell'Unione europea a Tokyo, intendete condannare più rigorosamente la decisione del Giappone di riprendere la caccia alla balena e di cacciare e uccidere 333 esemplari di balenottera rostrata durante la stagione 2015-2016? State valutando altri strumenti per esercitare pressioni sul Giappone attraverso canali bilaterali o multilaterali? Qualora la démarche non dovesse produrre i risultati auspicati, intendete intraprendere azioni legali volte a garantire il rispetto della sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia da parte del Giappone?


  Bert Koenders, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr La Via for this important question. The European Union and its Member States are strongly committed to the protection of whales. And in a broader sense I think you mention exactly why this is so important: the protection of biodiversity and marine ecosystems. Let me also be very clear about the position of the Council. We do not approve of the current whaling activities of Japan. Up to this day, Japan has failed to present sufficient evidence to justify its whaling activities with regard to its new research programme and a justification of lethal sampling, in particular, is far below standard.

We have conveyed our serious concerns in view of the expert panel findings and the conclusions of the Scientific Committee, and our position has not changed since June 2015. These serious concerns will be expressed again in a meeting in October and we acknowledge that an effective conservation and management regime can only be established through joint efforts and by initiatives that promote mutual trust and cooperation between all the members of the International Whaling Commission.

As already said, and I think you mentioned this very important point, at the International Whaling Commission meeting in September 2014, we regard the judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice in March 2014 concerning whaling in the Antarctic as a definitive interpretation of the Convention, and we believe that the principles of the ICJ judgment should be fully incorporated into the working practices, including by a revision of the current review system, Annex B.

In our view the judgment clarifies the legal framework for scientific whaling, particularly when it comes to assessing the necessity of having recourse to lethal methods of sampling where non-lethal alternatives exist. The judgment can also help to ensure an effective regulatory framework for international conservation and management. This brings all whaling operations under IWC control.

The European Union and its Member States stand by IWC Resolution 2014-5 adopted in 2014, according to which no further whaling permit should be granted without prior international review, including by the IWC Scientific Committee.

We regret that Japan had not consulted with its partners before engaging in such activities, which are not in line with the ICJ ruling. The Presidency will ensure that the European Union and its Member States are well prepared for the upcoming meeting in October. It is also against this background that the European Union and its Member States joined the démarche led by New Zealand to Japan in December 2015 following the resumption of Japan's whaling activities in the Southern Ocean.


  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, the EU is fully committed to the conservation of all cetaceans and is equipped with environmental legislation to pursue this objective. Commercial whaling is not allowed in Member States’ waters or by ships under the jurisdiction of a Member State. All whale species are protected from deliberate disturbance, capture or killing under the Habitats Directive. In addition, the introduction of cetaceans into, and export from, the EU for primarily commercial purposes is banned under our wildlife regulations. The EU has also clearly positioned itself against commercial whaling at the International Whaling Commission and strongly supports the moratorium on commercial whaling as an essential measure to protect whale stocks that have been decimated by decades and decades of unsustainable hunts.

For many decades now Japan has been conducting so-called scientific whaling under the special permit provided under the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling. The EU welcomed the 2014 landmark judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice ordering the interruption of the Japanese research programme in the Arctic, in the light of its scale, methods and limited scientific output. In December 2015, the EU and its Member States joined New Zealand, Australia, the USA, Mexico and South Africa in a diplomatic démarche towards the Japanese authorities against the decision to issue special permits under its new scientific whale research programme in the Antarctic Ocean for the hunting season 2015-2016.

The EU and its Member States do not believe that lethal sampling is required to satisfy the needs of a modern scientific research programme. In addition, we are deeply concerned by the fact that the new Japanese programme has been launched without due recourse to the concerns expressed by the IWC Scientific Committee in line with the clear criteria identified by the ICJ defining whaling for the purpose of scientific research.

Regrettably our diplomatic initiative did not result in reconsideration of the decision by the government of Japan. The issue of scientific whaling will be again on the agenda of the IWC at its next meeting, which will take place in Slovenia in October. The EU will continue to take a strong position on this subject and to work with our international partners to press for decisions within the IWC that lead to better conservation of whales worldwide.

The Commission is not considering legal action against Japan at this stage. We should try to resolve the issue through political dialogue as well as further discussions in the competent international forum, the IWC. The overall objective of the EU is to ensure an effective international regulatory framework for conservation and management, that currently is a significant improvement in the conservation status of whales in the long term and that brings all whaling operations under IWC control.


  Marijana Petir, u ime kluba PPE. – Gospodine predsjedniče, prošle smo godine, u isto vrijeme, raspravljali o istoj temi – poštivanju zaključka Međunarodnog suda pravde koji je ustanovio da se kitolov koji provodi Japan u Južnom oceanu ne može smatrati kitolovom u svrhu znanstvenog istraživanja, kako to tvrdi Japan. Japan očito nije pronašao način poput Norveške i Islanda da taj izlov bude u okviru dopuštenog temeljem dogovora sa svojim međunarodnim partnerima koji su mu omogućili nastavak tzv. kontroliranog ulova, već zloupotrebljava dobru vjeru ostatka međunarodne zajednice.

Japan je sam priznao da je u protekloj sezoni kitolova izlovio više od 300 kitova uključujući i 200 bređih ženki što će izazvati dalekosežne posljedice za tu populaciju. Tim više žalosti činjenica da se ne razgovara o prestanku lova na kitove, već se govori novom o dvanaestogodišnjem planu kojim će se omogućiti likvidacija 333 patuljasta kita tijekom sezone 2015./2016., a tijekom cijelog razdoblja od dvanaest godina njih ukupno 4000.

Takvo nepoštivanje međunarodnog prava postavlja pitanje njegove smislenosti, ali ne samo to. Druge nacionalne flote mogle bi uputiti pitanja svojim nacionalnim vladama u Australiji i Novom Zelandu, ili pak Čileu i Europskoj uniji smiju li i oni ići tamo istraživati na način kako to radi Japan.

Zato pitam Vijeće i Komisiju hoće li konačno naći adekvatno rješenje za ovaj slučaj nepoštivanja međunarodnog prava i zabraniti Japanu izlov kitova.


  Renata Briano, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, proprio un anno fa in questa plenaria si discuteva dello stesso tema e si condannava l'attività di whaling in Giappone. Ancora oggi abbiamo appreso che questo paese riprenderà questa pratica nell'ambito di un nuovo piano che durerà 12 anni e permetterà l'uccisione di circa 4 000 balene.

Nella stagione estiva appena conclusa di caccia scientifica – anche la mia collega l'ha detto – alle balene nei mari antartici, le baleniere giapponesi hanno riportato in patria 333 balenottere minori uccise, di cui circa 200 incinte. La Corte internazionale di giustizia dell'Aia aveva giudicato necessaria la sospensione di questa pratica, in quanto priva di fini scientifici, anche perché, come sappiamo, le cosiddette prove scientifiche finivano spesso negli scaffali dei supermercati nipponici.

Riprendendo la caccia alle balene, il Giappone sta chiaramente ignorando questa sentenza e gli impegni internazionali sottoscritti per l'arresto del massacro annuale nell'oceano del Sud. L'intenzione del Giappone, infatti, è palesemente in contrasto con la moratoria internazionale sulla caccia commerciale ai giganti del mare, è una continua violazione del diritto internazionale e degli obblighi di tutela di biodiversità e di ecosistemi marini. L'Europa deve opporsi e non può permettere che gli interessi commerciali abbiano sempre la priorità sugli interessi di tutela ambientale.

Anche allo scorso G7, mi è dispiaciuto sapere che i nostri vertici non sono stati abbastanza ambiziosi nel richiedere che il Giappone onori i suoi obblighi internazionali di tutela faunistica e, anzi, hanno chiesto di accelerare gli accordi. Spero, insomma, che su questo si possa ancora trovare un terreno di discussione. Pertanto chiediamo alla Commissione e al Consiglio di adoperarsi con forza per fare in modo che il Giappone smetta questa mattanza. E ricordo che oggi è la Giornata internazionale degli oceani.


  Mark Demesmaeker, namens de ECR-Fractie. – U weet dat ik mij met hart en ziel inzet voor het behoud van de biodiversiteit. Het is in dit licht dat ik u vandaag met nadruk oproep om toch een steviger vuist te maken tegen de plannen van Japan om de walvisvangst te hervatten.

Walvisvangst ondermijnt inderdaad niet alleen de bescherming van biodiversiteit in de mariene ecosystemen, het is in strijd met het internationaal recht, het is onnodig voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek en er is bovendien geen maatschappelijk draagvlak voor.

Commissie en Raad mogen geen mogelijkheid onbenut laten om deze gruwelijke praktijken een halt toe te roepen en het iconische dier dat de walvis is, te beschermen. De vrijhandelsovereenkomst waarover nog steeds wordt onderhandeld tussen de EU en Japan biedt daarvoor een uitgelezen kans. Al in oktober 2012 riep dit Parlement op om tijdens die onderhandelingen te spreken over de afschaffing van de walvisvangst en de handel in walvisproducten.

Commissaris, graag had ik van u geweten op welke manier de Commissie dit thema ter sprake brengt tijdens die onderhandelingen en of dit voor de Commissie een breekpunt vormt. Een duidelijk signaal van de Commissie kan hopelijk invloed uitoefenen op de volgende IWC-vergadering.


  José Inácio Faria, em nome do Grupo ALDE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário Katainen, Senhor Representante do Conselho, Senhor Ministro Koenders, venho de um país que, durante séculos, caçou baleias, mas que em boa hora soube pôr termo à ganância económica e acabar com a chacina destes seres sencientes.

Já o mesmo não se poderá dizer no que respeita ao Japão que, sob o falso pretexto de se tratar de programas de captura científica e em clara violação da moratória da pesca com fins comerciais de baleias, que entrou em vigor em 1986 e da qual é signatário, retomou ilegalmente a sua atividade de caça à baleia.

E, se digo ilegalmente, Sr. Comissário e Sr. Ministro, é porque existe uma decisão vinculativa do Tribunal Internacional de Justiça, de 2014, que obrigou o Japão a suspender o seu programa de caça de cetáceos, à qual esse país ardilosamente se pretende furtar como já aqui foi referido pelo meu colega Giovanni La Via, autor das perguntas parlamentares.

O argumento japonês de que estas capturas têm fins científicos é de um enorme despudor e até de descaramento, porque todos sabemos que a comunidade científica já não precisa de proceder à matança de baleias para fins de pesquisa, como referiu o próprio Tribunal Internacional que, ao decidir suspender o programa de caça do Japão, questionou os fins científicos do programa japonês e o considerou pouco transparente.

Caros colegas, esta decisão unilateral ilegal do Japão, que implicará a chacina de mais de 4000 espécimes ao longo de um período de 12 anos, é uma clara violação do direito internacional e um atentado contra a proteção da biodiversidade e dos ecossistemas marinhos.

Sr. Comissário. Sr. Ministro, a União Europeia não poderá assistir impávida e serena a este macabro jogo arquitetado pelo Japão com intuitos meramente económicos e deverá, pelo contrário, tudo fazer para impedir a matança destes seres vivos, bem como a comercialização de produtos provenientes desta atividade ilegal.

Caros colegas, habitamos todos num planeta que não é nosso, que apenas nos foi emprestado para podemos coabitar em paz com seres de outras espécies. Por isso, caros colegas, lutemos convictamente por essa herança magnífica.


  Stefan Eck, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Herr Minister! Die japanische Regierung hat trotz des Urteils des Internationalen Gerichtshofes und trotz massiver Proteste aus aller Welt auch in der Saison 2015/16 zu angeblich wissenschaftlichen Zwecken wieder Jagd auf Wale gemacht, und so soll es die nächsten zwölf Jahre auch weitergehen. Das ist eine Dreistigkeit, die nicht zu überbieten ist, denn wir wissen doch alle, dass das eine infame Lüge ist. Japan schlachtet viel zu lange schon diese friedlichen Meeressäuger ab, um sie an Restaurants zu verkaufen.

Die meisten Menschen in der EU lehnen den Walfang kategorisch ab; deshalb sollten auch wir als ihre gewählten Vertreter auf die Waljagd und das totale Ignorieren des IGH-Urteils jetzt angemessen reagieren. Eine Protestnote oder ein politischer Dialog reichen nicht mehr aus; andere Schritte sind notwendig.

Das Abschlachten der Wale ist ein Verbrechen und trägt zum Aussterben dieser Meeressäuger bei. Die Kommission sollte die Internationale Walfangkommission ermutigen, eine echte Walschutzkommission zu werden, und es sollte möglich sein, Sanktionen gegen Japan zu verhängen.


  Linnéa Engström, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Valjakt är oerhört grymt. Valar harpuneras och går en långsam död till mötes. I modern valfångst skjuter man harpun med en granat mot valen. Granaten exploderar trettio centimeter in valens kropp och försätter den i chock tills den dör.

Sedan 1986 finns det ett förbud mot kommersiell valfångst. Syftet är att rädda valar från utrotning. De enda undantagen från förbudet är jakt för ursprungsbefolkningars behov och för vetenskapliga syften.

När beslutet togs så blev plötsligt Japan väldigt intresserade av att bedriva forskning. De startade sitt valforskningsprogram bara ett år efter moratoriet och fortsatte att jaga val i Antarktis. Sedan 1987 har Japan dödat över 13 000 valar i sina så kallade vetenskapliga program, trots att det varit allmänt känt att deras jakt på valkött främst haft kommersiella syften.

Men i mars 2014 fastslog Internationella domstolen i Haag att den japanska valfångsten inte bedrivs i vetenskapligt syfte. Jag är mycket besviken på Japan, som trots detta domslut har återupptagit valjakten. De planerar nu att fånga 4 000 valar under en tolvårsperiod. Under årets säsong har de redan dödat 333 vikvalar, varav mer än 200 var dräktiga, flera med tvillingar.

Japan respekterar inte internationell rätt. Vi måste göra klart för Japan att detta inte är acceptabelt. Det strider inte bara mot internationell rätt, utan det utgör ett allvarligt hot mot biologisk mångfald och marina ekosystem. Dessutom så har efterfrågan på valkött minskat kraftigt i och med att japanska konsumenter har blivit bättre informerade. Det gör det ännu mer obegripligt varför Japan envisas med att fortsätta.

EU måste reagera. Det är dags för rådet att sätta större press på Japan och inte tveka att ta till rättsliga åtgärder om det behövs. EU måste använda de påtryckningsmedel som vi har – politiska och ekonomiska – för att denna grymma slakt ska sluta.


  Marco Affronte, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, come è già stato detto un anno fa eravamo qua a raccontarci le stesse cose, a fare le stesse dichiarazioni, a discutere di questa assurda caccia alla balena, ed è strano che nel 2016 stiamo ancora parlando di caccia alla balena.

Stavolta il Giappone ci ha stupito ancora di più perché ci presenta un piano che va addirittura in là di 12 anni e comprende la cattura di 4 000 esemplari di balena. La Corte internazionale di giustizia ha già detto che questa non è ricerca scientifica, che le scuse addotte dal Giappone non hanno nessun senso. Ma non c'era bisogno della Corte internazionale di giustizia, basta chiedere a qualunque scienziato che lavora sui cetacei per sapere quanti metodi alternativi abbiamo, e nessuno di questi comprende l'uccisione di così tanti esemplari, in realtà neanche soltanto di un esemplare.

Parliamo di una specie che ha comportamenti molto complessi, parliamo di specie che hanno alta, elevata affinità sociale e di una specie che è dichiarata intelligente, di una specie che ha un'elevata sensibilità. Eppure siamo di nuovo qui a parlarne e non abbiamo e non troviamo gli strumenti per poter mettere un freno a questa cosa. Ci chiediamo che cosa l'Unione europea possa fare ed effettivamente non abbiamo avuto risposte perché probabilmente le risposte neanche ci sono.

Proviamo a passare da un'altra parte. In Giappone, l'istituto giapponese di ricerca sui cetacei ci dice che, nel 2014, delle 1 200 tonnellate di balena importate 900 non sono state vendute e sono rimaste nei frigoriferi. La cultura giapponese sta cambiando, il consumo giapponese sta cambiando. Nel 2015 ogni giapponese in media ha mangiato 30 grammi di carne di balena. Vuol dire che la mangiano in pochissimi ed è una tradizione che sta scomparendo, ma il Giappone va avanti con la sua tradizione, non vuole sentire la voce della comunità internazionale.

Ora noi chiediamo all'Unione europea di alzare la voce. È l'unica cosa che può fare, perché non abbiamo altri strumenti, e cerchiamo di andare a colpire, se non la politica, se non le istituzioni, i consumatori giapponesi. Dobbiamo avere anche il loro supporto per fermare questo assurdo massacro.


  Sylvie Goddyn, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, la décision du Japon de reprendre la chasse à la baleine, malgré la décision de la Cour internationale de justice, suscite des inquiétudes légitimes.

En effet, le Japon prévoit de pêcher environ 4 000 baleines sur 12 ans et l'abattage récent près de l'Australie de 541 baleines, dont 207 femelles en gestation, paraît complètement irresponsable.

La justification scientifique donnée par le Japon ne tient pas la route, elle est d'ailleurs semblable aux arguments en faveur des tests sur les animaux en laboratoire, qui sont pour la plupart parfaitement inutiles.

Les propositions de notre Parlement – faire pression sur le Japon, voire engager une procédure judiciaire – sont intéressantes, mais elles sont floues et n'évoquent aucun moyen de pression concret. Pourtant il existe des pistes, notamment du côté des accords de pêche avec les pays en voie de développement. Le Japon conclut souvent des accords de pêche avec les mêmes pays que l'Union européenne. La reprise de la chasse à la baleine ne pourrait-elle pas être un argument à faire valoir dans les négociations? Je pose la question.

Enfin, le Japon n'est pas la seule menace pour la survie des baleines: en effet, les déchets plastiques les empoisonnent et conduisent à des échouages massifs, notamment sur les côtes européennes. Et ce ne sont pas des sacs plastiques qui les tuent, mais des morceaux constitutifs de serres agricoles utilisées aux Pays-Bas ou encore en Espagne.

Il est donc important de balayer devant notre porte, en réglant également ce problème qui nous concerne directement.


  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Mr President, here in Europe we greatly admire the way in which traditions are cherished and are part of the living culture in Japan. Having said that, we are also aware that no culture is born or living in a vacuum; they transform and adapt to changing circumstances. If we look at the evolution of Japanese culture through the millennia, there is no better example in this regard than the period of Meiji Restoration.

While it is true that a number of coastal communities in Japan have indeed practised inshore whale hunting for centuries, it is stretching it a bit too far to invoke traditional culture today to defend sending out ships across the globe and to the Antarctic to hunt whales.

Fortunately, the times of post-war world food shortages, when whale meat was the biggest source of meat in Japan, have long past, and most people can afford other types of meat. Consumption has been falling for years, and most Japanese do not even eat whale meat at all. Therefore, just as eating habits have changed, so should the practice of whale hunting.

Nor can the killing of hundreds of whales each year be credibly justified by scientific research purposes. Considering the threat to some endangered species, the high economic cost of whaling for Japan’s taxpayers, and the damage that global condemnation brings to its international image, I believe that it would be in Japan’s best interest to call its whaling fleet home.


  Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Ministro, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, em 30 anos de experiência e investigação científica no mar, com as minhas equipas, realizei numerosos estudos sobre a biologia, ecologia alimentar, a ecotoxicologia, a migração e a dinâmica de populações de diversas espécies de cetáceos do Atlântico. Estudámos o comportamento, analisámos dejetos, realizámos biópsias, conduzimos censos, colocámos transmissores e sensores em indivíduos que monitorizámos através de hidrofones e satélites e produzimos modelos matemáticos de distribuição.

Nunca necessitámos de matar qualquer indivíduo. Complementarmente, utilizámos informação de animais que encontrámos arrojados na costa. A evolução tecnológica dá—nos hoje instrumentos e métodos que, apesar de intrusivos nalguns casos, pouco perturbam os animais a estudar, pouco perturbam os cetáceos. O estudo de isótopos estáveis, a análise genética e a genómica permitem-nos conhecer os hábitos alimentares, a dinâmica de migrações e até as relações de parentesco. Há hoje um enorme conjunto de métodos não letais que constituem excelentes aproximações à realidade e totalmente aceites pela comunidade científica. Por estas razões, considero pouco leal argumentar a necessidade de usar métodos letais para fins científicos.

Através do DNA barcoding e outras técnicas de base genética aplicadas a produtos de restauração, sabemos que os cetáceos provenientes da caça dita para fins científicos praticada pelo Japão são comercializados sem o adequado enquadramento, tendo conduzido a práticas comerciais desleais e enganosas.

Apesar de as suas metodologias de investigação científica terem sido condenadas pelo Tribunal Internacional de Justiça e também pela comunidade científica em geral, o Japão, que considero e respeito como uma grande nação histórica, cultural, científica e tecnológica, ainda não corrigiu o aspeto essencial do seu programa científico do Antártico, deixar de caçar baleias. Neste Dia Mundial dos Oceanos, quero afirmar, enquanto cientista e agora como político, a inutilidade da caça à baleia para fins científicos.




  Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL). – Vandaag is het Wereld Oceaan Dag. Wereldwijd maken mensen zich zorgen over het voortbestaan van walvissen. Velen zijn boos op Japan, want ondanks een verbod heeft Japan de afgelopen maanden opnieuw ruim 300 walvissen gedood, waaronder 200 zwangere dieren. De grootste dieren van onze planeet, worden met grof geschut bejaagd. Nadat ze langdurig zijn achtervolgd, worden de uitgeputte dieren met exploderende harpoenen beschoten, harpoenen die zich diep in het vlees boren. De zwaargewonde dieren worden aan boord getakeld en met geweerschoten omgebracht. Deze lijdensweg duurt vaak meerdere uren.

Een dergelijke afslachting is op geen enkele manier te rechtvaardigen. Europa is in staat dit leed te stoppen, door via zijn handelsbeleid druk uit te oefenen op Japan. Als we echt iets willen doen tegen de walvisjacht, dan praten we niet verder over een handelsverdrag zolang Japan deze gruwelijke en onverantwoorde illegale walvisjacht voortzet.

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




  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο Οργανισμός Αλιείας της Ιαπωνίας κοινοποίησε στη Διεθνή Επιτροπή Φαλαινοθηρίας ένα σχέδιο 12 ετών, σύμφωνα με το οποίο θα επιτραπεί θανάτωση 333 φαλαινών κατά το διάστημα 2015 - 2016 και συνολικά 4.000 φαλαινών κατά τη διάρκεια των 12 ετών. Σε αντίθεση δηλαδή με την απόφαση του Διεθνούς Δικαστηρίου, του 2014, που απαγόρευσε την ετήσια φαλαινοθηρία εκ μέρους της Ιαπωνίας, η χώρα αυτή συνεχίζει τη θανάτωση φαλαινών. Ήδη από το 1986 η Ιαπωνία έχει θανατώσει πάνω από 10.000 φάλαινες, χρησιμοποιώντας ως πρόσχημα δήθεν επιστημονικές μελέτες. Δεδομένου ότι η φαλαινοθηρία παραβιάζει τους κανόνες του διεθνούς δικαίου, υπονομεύει την προστασία της βιοποικιλότητας και των θαλάσσιων οικοσυστημάτων και δεν απαιτείται καν για επιστημονική έρευνα, είναι αναγκαίο η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να καταδικάσει τη στάση της Ιαπωνίας απέναντι στη θανάτωση των φαλαινών. Η Ιαπωνία θα πρέπει να συμμορφωθεί με τις αποφάσεις του Διεθνούς Δικαστηρίου και να σταματήσει τη σφαγή φαλαινών στον βωμό του κέρδους.


  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, bilo bi najbolje kada bismo ovaj svjetski dan oceana obilježili jednom dugom, dugom šutnjom u Parlamentu. Zbog svega onoga što smo oceanima učinili zadnjih desetljeća i zbog svega onoga što će se nažalost još dogoditi, a pogotovo u ovom konkretnom slučaju kada ne možemo govoriti o nikakvom znanstvenom istraživanju oceana i kitolova, kada ne možemo govoriti o očuvanju tradicije Japanaca u njihovom načinu izlova i kasnije, uporabi kitova. Sve je to jedna velika prijevara. Sve je to jedan odvratan posao koji Europska komisija, Europska unija mora pokušati zaustaviti svim političkim i pravnim metodama, ali pogotovo političkim metodama koje su nam na raspolaganju.

Šteta je da propustimo ovu priliku, izumrlo je toliko vrsta, učinimo barem to da kitovi ne izumru u našim oceanima.


(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)


  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, as I stated before, the Commission will continue to work to ensure that any future solution on whaling within the International Whaling Commission leads to a better overall conservation of whales worldwide and ultimately to a sizable reduction in the number of whales being killed under whatever whaling regime, commercial or scientific.

The EU and Japan are close allies and major international partners. The EU and Japan are currently negotiating a strategic partnership and a free trade agreement. In these frameworks, the EU is pushing for the inclusion of a robust trade and sustainable development chapter in the FTA and a robust article on the environment in the SPA, but whaling as such is not part of the ongoing negotiations on these agreements between the EU and Japan. Our differences of approach on particular issues of whaling should not prevent us from strengthening our economic and political cooperation in other areas.

Many thanks for your comments and this discussion.


  Bert Koenders, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I thank the honourable Members for all their inputs, which are extremely important for the coming months. This is something that we all share, namely that we do not approve of the current whaling activities of Japan.

I continue to be very concerned that Japan has also failed to present sufficient evidence to justify their whaling activities. We are looking ahead now to the meetings that are going to be held soon on this issue. The issue of scientific whaling is discussed at the meeting of the Scientific Committee, which just started in Bled. We have constantly recognised and supported the independence of that committee and we will keep to that position. We conveyed our serious concerns in view of the expert panel findings in 2015 and our position has not changed in that respect. The only way we can work on this is an effective conservation and management regime through joint efforts and by initiatives that promote mutual trust and cooperation. We stand really ready to engage with all partners at the IWC66, while reiterating the importance of respecting international obligations and our opposition to the conduct of so-called scientific whaling outside IWC control. As you know, we have made this démarche earlier. We will ensure that we will continue to take an active position in this debate against the policy that we all abhor and therefore we will also ensure that the European Union and its Member States are well prepared for the next meeting of the IWC in October.


  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Der gemäß Artikel 128 Absatz 5 GO einzureichende Entschließungsantrag wird zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt bekannt gegeben.

Die Abstimmung findet im Juli statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)


  Dominique Bilde (ENF), par écrit. – En novembre 2015, l'Agence japonaise de la pêche a informé la Commission baleinière internationale qu'elle reprendrait la chasse à la baleine dans le cadre d'un plan, qui s'étend sur douze années. Ce plan prévoit l'abattage de 333 petits rorquals au cours de la saison 2015-2016 et d'environ 4 000 baleines sur toute la durée du plan. Les questions demandent de condamner le Japon plus fermement et faire respecter l'arrêt de la CIJ du 31 mars 2014 ordonnant au Japon de cesser le massacre annuel de baleines dans l'océan Antarctique. Ce massacre ignoble va à l'encontre des préconisations pour le bien-être animal de l'UE et notamment aussi de l'article 13 du traité FUE. De plus, il est prouvé que cela n'est pas lié à des besoins scientifiques. La chasse à la baleine constitue nécessairement une atteinte à la biodiversité car certaines espèces de baleines sont en voie d'extinction. Il faudra néanmoins aussi se pencher sur le problème de l'indigestion de déchets plastiques par les baleines qui provoquent des échouages massifs.


  Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – En novembre 2015, les autorités japonaises ont annoncé un nouveau plan de pêche à la baleine. Ce plan concerne au total environ 4 000 baleines, dont 333 petits rorquals, au cours de la saison 2015-2016. Cette reprise de la chasse à la baleine est une très mauvaise nouvelle pour la protection de la biodiversité et des écosystèmes marins. De plus, il s'agit d'une violation flagrante du droit international, notamment de l'arrêt rendu le 31 mars 2014 par la Cour internationale de justice ordonnant au Japon de cesser le massacre de baleines dans l'océan Antarctique. Les autorités japonaises prétendent que cette pêche est pratiquée à des fins de recherche scientifique. Cette justification n'est pas crédible. L'arrêt de la Cour internationale de justice est très clair à cet égard. L'Union européenne doit peser de tout son poids pour faire pression sur le Japon. La pêche à la baleine doit être combattue. C'est une pratique d'un autre âge qui n'est pas conforme aux principes défendus par l'Union dans ses eaux et dans les eaux internationales. Au nom de la commission de la pêche du Parlement européen, j'appelle donc la Commission européenne à utiliser tous les moyens de pressions possibles, y compris une procédure judiciaire.


  Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE), in writing. – On 31st March 2014 the UN’s International Court of Justice – in its legally-binding decision – ruled that Japan’s state-subsidised whale-hunting in the Southern Ocean did not fall within the scope of scientific research and therefore was considered illegal. In spite of the ruling, Japan has recently resumed whaling, exploiting a loophole that allows for a limited amount of hunting for scientific purposes. Even though there has been a moratorium on commercial whaling since 1982, there is still supply of whale meat in Japan due to imports and the sale of the meat that was hunted on scientific missions. However, the hunting of whales could not be justified by the alleged strong cultural attachment to whale meat, either – which was popular in the post-war period since it was a cheap source of protein – as, according to research conducted by Greenpeace, whale meat consumption in Japan amounted to about 30 grams per person on average in 2015 (whereas the stockpile of unsold frozen whale meat totalled up to 5 900 tons in 2011). Following the suggestion of Greenpeace, activism from within Japan should be combined with international pressure. Therefore, I urge the EU and the Member States to take action and step up against this out-dated and illegal practice.


  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – Our planet’s ecosystems are under increasing pressure. Clean air, fresh water supplies and food security all depend on our ability to protect these ecosystems from over-exploitation. Working with our international partners, through wildlife trade policy and by establishing protected areas and certification schemes, we have made some positive changes. And we have witnessed – as the result of international cooperation – the conservation and recovery of some degraded environments and declining species. 3 years ago we closed a legal loophole and banned the practice of shark finning, to allow the shark population to recover and help restore the ecosystem balance. Whales – like sharks – play a role in balancing the marine ecosystem. International cooperation is the only way to conserve a vast, shared resource like the marine environment. It is hugely disappointing that Japan has decided to resume whaling – ostensibly for research purposes. We must persuade our international partners to adhere to the common rules, and to protect our shared resources, so that our planet may continue to provide for us and for future generations.

Jogi nyilatkozat - Adatvédelmi szabályzat