Die Präsidentin. Als nächster Punkt folgt der Bericht von Albert Jan Maat im Namen des Fischereiausschusses über den Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Rates zur Einführung eines Bewirtschaftungsplans für die Fischereien auf Scholle und Seezunge in der Nordsee [KOM(2005)0714 — C6-0034/2006 — 2006/0002(CNS) (A6-0265/2006)].

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Maat and the Committee on Fisheries for the preparation of this report concerning the Commission’s proposal for a long-term plan for the management of plaice and sole fisheries.

This is an important topic. Since the Commission first began discussing the long-term management of these stocks and fisheries in 2004, there has been a significant worsening of the state of these stocks. In particular, the size of the sole stock is now declining rapidly due to low numbers of incoming young fish. High fuel prices and lower catch rates have combined to create a very difficult situation for this sector and this fits very well into what I have been saying before.

The Commission’s proposal is intended to reverse this trend by leading to more efficient and more profitable fisheries and I am keen to see it adopted soon so that fisheries can begin to recover and to improve.

I thank you, therefore, for this report and I now turn to the specific amendments that you propose. I can support Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 18 and 21. However, I should mention that the Commission has already begun a debate, as requested in Amendment 4, with the regional advisory councils concerning the implementation of maximum sustainable yield management and has also already arranged for the impact assessment foreseen in Amendment 5. The final text should reflect the fact that these measures requested by Parliament have already taken place.

I can accept in principle that there could be a two-step approach in long-term plans, and that different measures would apply in situations where stocks are outside safe biological limits from those applicable in situations where stocks are within those limits. Therefore, I can accept the principles behind Amendments 1, 7, 9 and 10. However, it is important to improve the state of the stock and the finances of the industry. More consultations with the sector and the Member States concerned will be needed to refine the details, as will careful consideration of the results of the impact analysis.

I fully support provisions to revise long-term targets at periodic intervals of about five years in order to take account of changes in the environment and the ecosystems. However, I am not in a position to accept Parliament’s amendments intended to provide stability for the industry by setting TACs that are stable for three-year periods. Stability for the industry can better be provided by limiting changes to TACs between years. The North Sea RAC has revised its opinion on this topic and in its latest advice no longer advises such a measure. Therefore, I cannot accept Amendment 8, the second paragraph of Amendment 9, nor Amendments 10, 11 and 24.

Concerning Amendment 12, I can accept the widening of scope to include a wider definition of fishing effort for plaice and sole, though a more precise legal wording may be necessary. However, here again, I cannot support a proposal that effort limits be adapted only at three-yearly intervals.

Concerning Amendment 13, a legislative text for a long-term plan must define clearly how efforts should be adjusted in order to achieve the targets of the plan. Parliament’s text does not seem clear enough from a legal and technical point of view. Advice from scientific committees indicates that significant amounts of cod are caught and are discarded.

As the plaice and sole fisheries exert mortality on cod, it is necessary to keep this mortality under review and to adjust relevant efforts if necessary. This is why I am not in a position to accept Amendment 14, because it would create a non-equitable situation in comparison with other fisheries sectors that also have an impact on cod and are subject to cod-recovery measures.

Amendment 15 asks for a change in the log-book tolerance from 8% to 10%. However, the 8% figure was adopted in the Council as a common value in other long-term plans after a long discussion. I believe this figure should be retained for plaice and sole as for the other long-term plans.

The practical implementation of Amendments 16 or 17 would require that fisheries inspectors be able to distinguish between plaice or sole caught in the North Sea and fish of these species caught in other areas, a task which does not seem possible.

I can accept the principle and intentions behind Amendments 6, 19, 22 and 23, but I believe it should be implemented in a different way. The Commission is preparing an evaluation of technical measures and the regulation of fishing gears should be reviewed as soon as possible in that context.

If either plaice or sole enters into biologically very high-risk situations, the Council should be more cautious in setting fishing opportunities. This is consistent with the guiding principles of the common fisheries policy and will provide additional protection to stocks that are in their most vulnerable state. For this reason, I cannot accept Amendment 20.

In conclusion, I thank Parliament for its careful scrutiny of this document. Raising and addressing the issues I have just mentioned will, I am sure, improve the quality and efficiency of the regulation that is eventually agreed in order to achieve the objective of improving the profitability of the fishery and the state of the stocks of plaice and sole, as well as reducing discarding.

  Albert Jan Maat (PPE-DE), Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, ik dank de Commissaris voor de start van dit debat, want ik constateer dat hij het Parlement op een aantal punten tegemoet komt. Ik deel zijn zorg met betrekking tot de ontwikkeling van de schol- en tongbestanden op de Noordzee, maar tegelijkertijd wordt ook duidelijk dat dit niet te maken heeft met visserij-inspanning, maar wel misschien met klimaatveranderingen die soms niet helemaal te verklaren zijn. Maar voor alle duidelijkheid, ik deel zijn zorg op dat punt. Ik ben blij dat hij op een aantal punten toch een stap in de richting van het Parlement komt.

Een belangrijk kritiekpunt van mij op de werkwijze van de Europese Commissie was dat het voorstel er al lag voordat er een degelijk advies was van de regionale adviesraad voor de Noordzee. Dat lijkt me niet de goede gang van zaken. Het lijkt me essentieel indien wij een draagvlak willen houden voor de visserij, dat wij juist deze regionale adviesraden een volwaardige plaats geven in het debat en dat wij ze ook voorafgaandelijk een inbreng laten leveren. Ik zeg dat met des te meer nadruk want in deze regionale adviesraden zetelen niet alleen visserijorganisaties, maar ook het Wereldnatuurfonds en andere natuurorganisaties. En juist dat geeft stabiliteit en een draagvlak voor het beleid in een bepaalde regio.

Wat betreft het toepassen van de MSY-doelstellingen ben ik blij dat de Commissie op dit moment de mededeling hierover heeft gedaan. Deze ontbrak nog, voorafgaand aan het beheersplan voor de tong en schol, dit terwijl de MSY-doelstellingen hiervoor in feite al wel waren gepresenteerd door de Commissie. Mijn kritiek is vooral gericht op het feit dat dat wel is gebeurd voor de tong en de schol, maar niet voor een aantal andere beheersplannen, bijvoorbeeld de Golf van Biscaje.

Het lijkt mij ook de juiste volgorde dat wij in het Parlement eerst een principiële discussie hebben over de toepassing van MSY-doelstellingen vooraleer deze voor een bepaalde vissoort worden ingevoerd. Ik juich het op zich wel toe dat de Commissaris een aantal stappen in de goede richting doet, maar op een aantal andere punten moet er wellicht nog wat meer overleg zijn. Ik hoop ook dat de Raad nog wat opschuift in de richting van het Parlement om ervoor te zorgen dat er in ieder geval een evenwichtige aanpak is.

De Commissaris heeft gezegd dat vaststelling van driejarige quota volgens hem toch een probleem is omdat je daarmee niet snel genoeg zou kunnen bijsturen. Ik betwijfel dat, ook al omdat de visserij op tong en schol misschien wel de best gecontroleerde visserij van Europa is en ook als je ziet op welke manier de visserijorganisaties deze hanteren. Ik wijs onder andere op de producentenorganisaties in een aantal havens die nauw samenwerken en waar er een hele goede samenwerking is tussen de lidstaten, de overheden, de controle en de visserijorganisaties zelf. Het zou toch aantrekkelijk kunnen zijn, ook voor de Europese Commissie, om op termijn toch over te gaan naar een driejarige TAC.

Misschien loop ik al vooruit op de discussie over de mededeling over de MSY- doelstellingen van de Commissie - maar het mijns inziens essentiële punt is dat regionale adviesraden een dominante rol krijgen in de besluitvorming van Europa, bij elk voorstel van de Commissie vooraf gehoord worden, en dat met hun standpunt rekening wordt gehouden in de argumentatie van de voorstellen.

Wij zullen immers in toenemende mate in Europa ook binnen de visserij discussies krijgen waarin een groot aantal lidstaten kennelijk nauwelijks geïnteresseerd zijn. We hebben nu immers niet meer 6 of 15 lidstaten maar 25. En wat moet een Hongaarse minister van Visserij meespreken over zeg maar de garnalen in de Noordzee of een Nederlandse minister van visserij over de visserij rond Cyprus?

Natuurlijk zijn er algemene beleidslijnen, maar juist om een draagvlak voor de visserij te houden is het essentieel dat deze regionale adviesraden ook in de toekomst een belangrijke rol krijgen, ook in de uitvoering van de plannen. Daarom krijgt dit punt ook in mijn verslag heel veel aandacht. Het kan een draagvlak geven voor de visserijbesluiten.

Belangrijker is echter het volgende: we zitten nu vaak in een kramp met wetenschappelijke adviezen voor de vaststelling van quota en vervolgens - laten we maar eerlijk zijn - is het in de Raad toch een politiek handjeklap. Wetenschappelijke adviezen worden dan ook dusdanig conservatief opgesteld dat er al rekening wordt gehouden met de uitkomst in de Raad. Van die situatie moeten we af! We moeten veel sneller en veel vroeger zorgen dat er samenwerking is tussen de sector en de wetenschappelijke instituten, om te komen tot een goede afweging van plannen.

Nogmaals ik dank de Commissaris dat hij ons op een aantal punten tegemoet gekomen is. Morgen in de stemming zal blijken wat de positie van het Parlement is. Ik ben er vast van overtuigd dat de Commissaris de inbreng van het Parlement ook een dominante positie zal geven in de discussie in de Raad.

  Neil Parish, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Maat for his report. I believe that when we look at fisheries, especially at catching plaice and sole – and basically they are mixed fisheries because other species are being caught, cod included – we have to be much more radical than we are at the moment. The Commissioner knows that full well and I have raised the issue of discards in general with him several times. Let us land all the fish that are caught, instead of having so many species quotas with the result that a lot of healthy fish are discarded. Of all the problems with the common fisheries policy, throwing healthy fish overboard is the one that the general public in Europe see as particularly ridiculous.

I also think we must be sure that powers are devolved to the North Sea Advisory Council and that the Commission takes notice of it. Mr Maat made the point that it is no good the Commission coming up with a proposal before it has taken note of what the North Sea Advisory Council has said. That gives people the impression that the Commission is not listening. I also think that with the age-old problem of stocks in general there is always a conflict between the scientific advice and what the fishermen believe the stocks to be. It is not always easy to come to a conclusion.

My final point is – and I stress the need to be more radical – that I think the way forward is to look at the total quotas of fish caught and see if we cannot change that into days at sea and fishing effort, so that we can land all the fish caught.

  Marianne Mikko, fraktsiooni PSE nimel. – Kallid kolleegid, kõigepealt lubage mul tänada raportööri tõsise ja hea töö eest. Minu kodumaal Eestis on kalapüük midagi enamat kui tööstus, enamat kui leivateenimine. Kalapüük on lahutamatu osa meie kultuurist. Kolmest küljest veega ümbritsetud maal ei saagi see teisiti olla. Ma tunnen perekondi, kelle suguvõsa on põlvest põlve kalapüügiga tegelenud. Nende jaoks ei ole kalapüük äriprojekt vaid eluviis.

Tööstuslik kalapüük on rannakalurite elu huku äärele viinud. Täna kõne all olevad lest ja merikeel kuuluvad Maailma Looduse Fondi teatel kõige enam ohustatud kalaliikide hulka. Pooled piimtraaliga püütavatest lestadest osutuvad alamõõdulisteks. Nad tuleb merre tagasi visata. Suurem osa neist hukkub. Selline raiskamine on põliste kalurite jaoks arusaamatu. On selge, et raiskavate püügimeetodite kasutamine tuleks lõpetada pigem varem kui hiljem. Ma loodan, et Euroopa Komisjon on suuteline viivitamata läbi viima asjakohase uuringu ning esitama ettepanekud seniste püügimeetodite kiireks asendamiseks loodussäästlike meetoditega. Ma tean väga hästi, et kalanduse eripära ei võimalda nii kiiret reageerimist kui näiteks infotehnoloogiamajandus.

Ma nõustun raporti ettepanekuga kehtestada üheaastaste püügikvootide asemel kvoot kolmeks aastaks. See tagab kalanduse järjepidevuse. Järjepidevuse ja jätkusuutlikkuse tagamisel on kindlasti kasu tihedast koostööst kohalikke olusid tundvate organisatsioonidega, mille hulgast raportöör tõstab esile Põhjamere regionaalnõukogu. Ka püüded tagada kalavarude taastamist Läänemeres, mis toidab viie liikmesriigi kalureid, oleksid märgatavalt edukamad, kui saadaks käima regionaalne koostöö.

Mis puudutab Läänemerd, rõhutan siin ja täna, et Läänemere regioon väärib eraldi rida Euroopa Liidu eelarves, nagu see on olemas juba ammugi Vahemere regioonil.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, given the state of our seas, the Commissioner’s first priority should be to save the fish. When safe biological limits are being exceeded, we all expect action and I commend the action that is being taken. I also commend the attempt to move towards a policy of achieving maximum sustainable yields. I do not see how anyone can be opposed to that. It is like apple pie and motherhood.

The difficulty is how we move from the present disaster to future perfection, without disrupting the lives and occupations of fishermen to an impossible degree. That is my doubt about this particular policy. The purpose of the Regional Advisory Councils is to try and ensure that fishermen are integrated into the process. So when their advice seems to be being ignored, it may be the wrong advice. Perhaps that is the Commission’s fault for not communicating the message. It is the opportunity for greater long-term prosperity. Fishermen, as we all know, need to be included in the process.

I agree with the Commissioner when he says that we must go for only one-year quotas. The danger is that if we set a quota at the wrong level, in three years’ time there may be no more fish to set the next quota for.

  Carl Schlyter, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – När man tänker på sjötunga och rödspätta så är det en källa till glädje och väldigt god fisk, men framtida generationer kommer inte att uppleva den glädjen om inte vi tar vårt ansvar idag. Jag tycker att Albert Jan Maats betänkande i huvudsak är bra, men jag kritiserar precis samma saker som kommissionsledamoten. Ändringsförslag 8 om att ha en treårskvot innebär precis det som Chris Davies sade. Det går inte att anpassa i tid och är inte lämpligt. Samma sak gäller torsken. Detta hänger ihop och det innebär att inte heller ändringsförslag 14 kan godkännas. Om antalet dagar till sjöss skall begränsas av det skäl som anges så måste det gälla även dessa fartyg, man kan inte göra undantag här. När det gäller ändringsförslag 15 som innebär toleransmarginal på 10 procent istället för 8 procent vill jag påpeka att detta inte är komplicerat med modern datateknik. Vi klarar av att räkna ut 8 procent istället för 10 procent. Den ökade flexibiliteten skadar bestånden. Samma sak gäller ändringsförslag 20. En ökad flexibilitet för medlemsstaterna att tolka när man behöver göra åtgärder fungerar inte. När man försöker få ökad flexibilitet så leder det egentligen till minskad flexibilitet. För om fisken är utfiskad finns det ingen flexibilitet kvar. Då finns det noll fiskekvot, noll fiskedagar och 100 procent arbetslöshet bland yrkesfiskarna. Det vill väl ingen ha?

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, for centuries British fishermen looked after their fishing grounds – the waters up to 200 miles off the coast. They achieved a sustainable industry by care, not by chance. Then we joined the EC, and that all changed.

The wretched CFP, with its bureaucratic plans, crazy quotas and enforced discards has reduced stocks to their lowest level ever, closed fishing ports and reduced the UK fishing fleet to a quarter of its size. Many species are down to danger levels – plaice and sole today, something else tomorrow. And to think that the CFP was not even in the Treaty of Rome: it was invented overnight to let Edward Heath have something to give away in exchange for the right to sign!

Now, in answer to the desperate shortage of fish in the North Sea, all we hear about is too many boats chasing too few fish – I’ll say! They are mostly boats from Spain, which has a fleet as big as the rest of the EU put together. No wonder the Norwegians said no! They saw it coming, and with their fishing industry such a boost to their economy, they were right. Norwegian stocks remain in good order. Are there any lessons for the CFP there?

This report will do nothing. While the management plan acknowledges the North Sea Advisory Council, it ignores its findings. It is inconsistent in departing from similar decisions in areas like the Bay of Biscay, and it is based on a maximum sustainable yield before that is even defined.

This report is well named, for ‘exploitation’ is exactly what has happened to the once abundant North Sea fisheries. Tell me: who benefits from the destruction of the richest waters of Western Europe?

  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur for taking on the Commission and for taking it to task in relation to its glaring omissions and its oversights.

On the one hand we have the Commission’s explanatory memorandum openly acknowledging that the North Sea Regional Advisory Council is a principal forum for advice in relation to the management plan for the preservation and regeneration of plaice and sole stocks in the North Sea. Then, on the other hand, in its document the Commission makes no further reference to the NSRAC’s opinion.

I should be very grateful if the Commissioner could tell me who is or was responsible for drafting the Commission’s management plan. How can the Commission justify omitting the body or agency it openly recognises as an authority on North Sea fisheries and then studiously ignore the NSRAC? As has been stated and restated time and time again, forums such as the NSRAC were established in order to canvass and to utilise the wide body of expertise and opinion among people on the ground, people on the coalface, people who know the industry and to counteract the perception that Brussels or Strasbourg make policies which are often seen as ‘about you, without you’. Is it any wonder that people turn off Brussels or Strasbourg?

The NSRAC has provided a bridgehead for bringing fishing interests, biologists and environmentalists together, getting them to agree collectively on ways of conserving stocks of plaice and sole. The proposals, if adopted, would increase the level of plaice stocks to above the precautionary levels of three to five years.

I have to say that the rapporteur has other reservations about the Commission’s approach, with which I agree, but time restraints do not permit me to elaborate on them, except to make a brief reference to the issue of MSY – maximum sustainable yields. The Commission’s proposal to launch a debate on MSY in advance of agreement by the Council and Parliament simply is not on. It is simply not acceptable, Mr Commissioner.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I should like to thank the honourable Members for their contributions.

Let me start by trying to clear the air with regard to the North Sea Regional Advisory Council. The Commission has held a series of consultation meetings and exchanges of views since June 2004. I do not believe that any other fisheries issue has been the subject of such extensive dialogue with the RACs. After the North Sea RAC decided to reserve its position until the Commission had made a specific proposal concerning long-term management targets and reference points, the Commission stated that it would put forward a proposal and even inform the RAC of its technical content at a meeting in November 2005. A discussion has since proceeded in good order on the basis of the Commission’s proposal. I am pleased that the North Sea RAC has recognised that many elements of the Commission’s proposal are valuable and appropriate.

Regarding maximum sustainable yields, a number of stocks were brought into long-term management plans some years ago, which included low-target fishing mortalities, such as mackerel, herring and, more recently, haddock. These plans have proved valuable and helpful to the industries concerned. I believe similar benefits can be extended to the flatfish sector. Discussions concerning the maximum sustainable yield should also take place, but that is a wider-scale issue. The immediate concern is to provide the flatfish fishery with a sound economic basis.

With regard to the point raised concerning TACs for three years, I must again underline that a three-year TAC would not help to recover the stock, simply because adjustments cannot be made in good time. How can one make adjustments mid-course if there is an urgent reason to reduce the TAC? The North Sea RAC has revised its position and it no longer advises such a measure. I can accept the argument that a three-year TAC will give greater security to fishermen, but not the argument that a three-year TAC would mean greater sustainability.

With regard to discards, we are actively considering what can be done to solve this problem. It is one of the top priorities for the remainder of my mandate. I cannot agree more with Mr Davies that fishermen need to be integrated into the process. We are doing our utmost to meet with and consult all fishing representatives.

  Die Präsidentin. Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen um 12.00 Uhr statt.