Brussels, 05/02/2013 (Agence Europe) - The plenary debate on reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) confirmed that there were differences of opinion prior to the vote, on Wednesday 6 February, of the report by Ulrike Rodust (S&D, Germany), especially with regard to the arrangements for implementing the ban on discards at sea. The EPP Group has submitted an amendment (No 297) calling for a realistic and pragmatic solution (and one that has the support of the industry) on the requirement to land all catches (see also EUROPE 10777). The European Parliament (EP) is acting for the first time in its new role as co-legislator on CFP reform, since adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The vote in the EP fisheries committee was very close, which, as Carmen Fraga Estévez (EPP, Spain) said, “shows that not everyone is pleased with the result”. She felt that the points on regionalisation of the CFP opened the way for discrimination against vessels on the basis of nationality. Also, banning discards, she underlined, is far easier to say than to actually do. The change is so brutal that it cannot be achieved. The EPP Group presented an amendment which, in no way, seeks to dodge the ban on discards, but simply to rationalise the way to achieve that objective. Fraga took the view that a transitional period was necessary, as the obligation is not only radical but innovative. She said that Norwegian fishermen went through a transitional period before setting the ban on discards in place. It was her conviction that the final compromise with Council is far closer to the EPP amendment than to the report by Rodust. It should be pointed out that the obligation to land fish in ports (which results from the ending of arises from the ending of the practice of discarding fish at sea) refers to species on which catch limits have been imposed and species that, in the Mediterranean, are subject to minimum landing sizes. The Rodust report recommends a ban on discards for all species. The EPP also requests that the timetable for banning discards should be extended in time (from 2016 to 2018). The Rodust report provides for a ban beginning in 2014.
Alain Cadec (EPP, France) said (our translation): “I call on all our colleagues to support the amendment on the landing obligation proposed by the EPP. That amendment is a reasonable compromise allowing this very ambitious objective, i.e. the obligation to land all catches, to be maintained, but it also allows the measure to be adjusted to make it realistic and applicable to the fisheries sector”. Cadec takes the view, moreover, that it is unthinkable to create a parallel market of undersized or unmarketable fish, as that would be counterproductive for the resource.
Guido Milana (S&D, Italy) said that what was at stake in this report and this reform is to ensure that only sustainable fish stocks are fished, in line with the principle of maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The elimination of discards is imperative, Milana said, adding that, if one wants to change the future of the sector and of the sea, then one must stop pointless fishing. He went on to add that times were changing. The EP fisheries committee supports the creation by member states of a coherent network of fish stock recovery areas in which all fishing activities are prohibited, including in particular areas important for fish reproduction. An amendment by Rodust, defended by Milana, goes still further, indicating that “member states shall identify and designate those areas, which shall amount to at least 10% of their territorial waters, together with the scientific community, and producer organisation representatives of the fishermen concerned and in concertation with the advisory council”.
Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE, Ireland) presented an amendment on the small coastal islands and another on harmonised controls. He said it is difficult to understand that what is considered a criminal offence in one state is simply liable to an administrative penalty in another. This, he said, leads to inequality within the EU while a common system would make it possible to resolve such problems. The question of discards is a complex one, he asserted, saying it is also necessary to give fishermen financial incentives to give up discarding. He also spoke of the problem of overfishing of mackerel in the North-East Atlantic (see related article).
On behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, Ian Hudghton laid great emphasis on the failure of the current CFP and said he supported measures aimed at eliminating the “scandal” of discards. In his view, “we should be building on the few successes that we have had in recent years, for example the 12-mile zone, where management by the fishing nations themselves has been relatively successful, Scotland's own efforts through its selectivity measures, through real-time closures decided upon by locals and moved around as required by the situation, CCTV observation and conservation credits”. In his view, decentralisation is the number one objective. That is why he is opposed to Rodust's amendment to have fish protection zones representing at least 10% of countries' territorial waters.
“Your fisheries committee has put forward a very good deal”, said Maria Damanaki, Fisheries Commissioner. “If we go through with this deal then by 2020 we will have increased the amount of fish in our seas by 15 million tonnes and the fish landed by our fishermen by half a million tonnes”, she argued, adding: “We can also increase the income of our fishermen by 25% and create 38% more jobs by 2020”. When she took office as fisheries commissioner, only five stocks were managed sustainably, she said, pointing out that there are now 27 such stocks, which shows progress has been made.
After MEPs had taken the floor, Damanaki showed willingness to demonstrate more flexibility by accepting many of the numerous ideas put forward in recent months (not only in Council but also at the EP). On the question of discards, the Commission is now more flexible, accepting a step-by-step and more realistic approach. It sees social sustainability as essential, which is why there is specific treatment proposed for small fisheries. The commissioner said by way of conclusion that, for the first time, the EP will take political decisions on fishing that will allow coming generations to look forward to the future with greater optimism.
On behalf of the Council, Irish Minister Simon Coveney said at the end of the debate that they were in agreement about the fact that fundamental reform of the CFP is needed. He said it was not possible to continue importing 65% of fish consumed in the EU when the EU has territorial waters that could produce far more fish. They cannot continue to discard an average of 23% of all catches and they cannot allow overfishing to be tolerated. He did not think it was appropriate for the Presidency of the Council of Ministers to give advice or to support amendments. He said that it was up to the EP to come to its own decision, before he went on to state that the EP's position on reform will contribute to negotiation during the trialogue. Coveney recalled his goal: to conclude CFP reform by end June. (LC/transl.jl)