[30.08.2011]    B[0-0000/2011]
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
pursuant to Rule 90(6) of the Rules of Procedure

[and 72 other Members]

European Parliament resolution requesting an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the Protocol [Renewal of Moroccan Fisheries Agreement] with the Treaties
 

The European Parliament,

–          having regard to Articles 3(5) and 21 of the Treaty on European Union,
–          having regard to Article 218(6) and (11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
–          having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 of 22 May 2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (OJ L 141, 29.5.2006, p.1.1),
–           having regard to the Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of a Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco (COM(2011) 313 final) and the request by the Council for the consent of the European Parliament,
–          having regard to Rule 90(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.         whereas the first Protocol on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco expired on 28 February 2011,

B.         whereas a new Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco was signed on 13 July 2011,

C.         whereas the conclusion of the new Protocol requires the consent of the European Parliament before it can be finally adopted by the Council,
D.         whereas the application of the new Protocol extends to the waters off the coast of Western Sahara, which territory has been on the United Nations list of Non-Self Governing Territories since 1963,

E.         whereas, in order to comply with international law, economic activities related to the natural resources of a Non-Self-Governing Territory must be carried out for the benefit of the people of such a Territory, and in accordance with their wishes; whereas it has not been demonstrated that the Union’s financial contribution is used for the benefit of the people of Western Sahara;

F.         whereas these obligations bind not only Morocco but also the Union as the primary beneficiary of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement and its Protocol,

1.         Considers that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the new Protocol respects international law with regard to the socio-economic interests and the exploitation of the natural resources of the Non-Self-Governing Territory of Western Sahara, and thus whether it is compatible with the Treaties in this respect;

2.         Decides to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the abovementioned Protocol with the Treaties;

3.         Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission for information and to take the necessary measures to obtain such an opinion from the Court of Justice.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
on
Motion for a Resolution of the European Parliament requesting an opinion from the European Court of Justice on the compatibility with the EU Treaties of the Protocol to the EU ? Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement

 30 August 2011

-The EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) and its Protocol (“FPA Protocol”) were signed in 2005 and entered into force on 28 February 2007. These agreements required the EU to pay Morocco €36 million per annum in return for access by EU vessels to the fishery resources in “waters falling within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Morocco.”

-Western Sahara is not part of Morocco. Western Sahara has been listed as a Non-Self-Governing Territory under the Charter of the United Nations since 1963. In 1975, the International Court of Justice rejected Morocco’s claim to sovereignty over the Territory, and Morocco has never been listed, nor recognized, as the Territory’s administering power. As an illegal occupier, Morocco has no basis for exercising sovereign rights over the Territory, nor to exploit its natural resources.

-Following confirmation from the European Commission that EU vessels were using licences under the FPA to fish the waters adjacent to Western Sahara, and a declaration by the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) of a 200?nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, an opinion by the European Parliamentary Legal Service in 2009 confirmed that the application of the FPA and its Protocol to the waters off Western Sahara is inconsistent with international law (see Note 1).

-With the first FPA Protocol due to expire on 27 February 2011, the European Commission rushed in early 2011 to negotiate a renewal with Morocco. The European Parliament was not consulted during this process, despite the requirement in Article 218 TFEU that this should occur.

-A new, one?year Protocol was initialed by negotiators on 25 February 2011, and included a provision allowing its ‘provisional application’ from 28 February 2011 pending the Protocol’s entry into force (the initial Protocol expired on 27 February 2011).

-A confidential ‘ex?post evaluation’ report provided by consultants Océanic Developpement to the Commission on the operation of the FPA from 2007 to 2010 found that it was the least beneficial of all of the EU’s bilateral fisheries agreements, and that it imposes a net economic loss on the EU – it generated only €0.83 in economic activity for every one euro of the €36 million paid annually by the EU.

-Under the new Lisbon Treaty, the consent of the European Council and the European Parliament, respectively, are required for an international agreement – such as the FPA Protocol – to be concluded and to enter into force.

-On 29 June 2011, the EU Council voted by the narrowest of margins to allow the Commission to formally sign and provisionally apply the new one?year FPA Protocol. Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK all refused to support the renewal.

-The European Commission and Morocco formally signed the new FPA Protocol on 13 July 2011, and it was transmitted by the Council to the European Parliament (EP) seeking its consent. The new Protocol will be considered by the EP Fisheries Committee (PECH) in early September, with Carl Haglund (ALDE) designated as the Committee’s rapporteur.

-Article 218 (11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) (see Note 2) allows the European Parliament (and the other EU institutions) to refer an ‘envisaged’ agreement to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for an advisory opinion on whether it complies with the EU Treaties, including the EU’s fundamental principles and general obligations under international law, including the UN Charter (see Note 3).

-In one example, Article 218 (11) of the TFEU was used previously by the European Council to test the compatibility of the draft agreement on the European and Community Patents Court with the EU Treaties. The ECJ found that the draft agreement was incompatible with the EU Treaties.

-A referral to the ECJ needs to be triggered by a resolution of the EP (see Note 4). As explained in a letter of 15 June 2011 from EP President Jerzy Buzek to MEP Andrew Duff, one procedural avenue is for the resolution to be proposed to the plenary by one?tenth [74] of the total number of MEPs.

-On 30 August 2011, MEPs Andrew Duff (ALDE) and Raul Romeva (Greens / ALE) began circulating a proposed resolution pursuant to Rule 90(6) of the EP Rules of Procedure to the EP plenary.

NOTES

Note 1 – 2009 European Parliamentary Legal Service Opinion regarding the EU-Morocco FPA

Drawing on a legal opinion provided by the UN Legal Counsel to the UN Security Council in 2002, the European Parliamentary Legal Service in 2009 confirmed that economic activities relating to the natural resources of the Non-Self-Governing Territory of Western Sahara must be conducted for the benefit of the people of Western Sahara, and in accordance with their wishes. In other words, those seeking to engage in the exploitation of Western Sahara’s natural resources must consult with and have the prior consent of the Saharawi people or their political representatives.

As the internationally recognised representatives of the Saharawi people, the Frente POLISARIO has repeatedly protested against the application of the FPA and its Protocol to the waters adjacent to Western Sahara, including in letters to the European Commission, to EU Member States and to the United Nations Security Council. 

On the basis of its finding that the FPA was not being implemented in conformity with the principles of international law concerning the permanent sovereignty of the Saharawi people over their natural resources – principles which the EP Legal Service found that the European Member States were bound to respect – the Legal Service recommended the suspension of the FPA or the cessation of fishing by EU vessels in Western Sahara’s waters.

Despite this opinion, the European Commission has maintained that the implementation of the FPA and its Protocol was legal, claiming that there was no evidence that benefits were not flowing to the local population, and that the relevant legal obligations fall solely on Morocco as occupier to ensure that benefits under the FPA accrue to the Saharawi. This interpretation constitutes a serious misconstruction of the EU’s international legal obligations.

Note 2 – Article 218(11) TFEU

Article 218 (11) TFEU provides that “the European Parliament…may obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the [EU] Treaties.” The Lisbon Treaty introduced new Articles 3(5) and 21 to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which expressly require the EU to respect and observe “the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms”, including “the principles of the UN Charter and international law.“

Note 3 – Relevant obligations under international law

Article 3 (5) TEU imposes an obligation on the EU to “contribute to […] the protection of human rights […] as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter”

Article 21 TEU provides that “the Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by […] the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms […], and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.”

The fundamental right of the people of Western Sahara to self?determination (a referendum to choose how they wish to be governed, like in East Timor in 1999) and to exercise control over their natural resources are international legal rights of the highest order (‘jus cogens’), which the EU and its Member States are bound to respect. These rights have been codified variously within the UN Charter, the major international human rights instruments (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and the case law of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The EU’s partnership with Morocco to allow access by EU vessels to exploit the fishery resources of Western Sahara is tainted by the illegality of Morocco’s occupation and is in itself illegal. It thus raises serious questions about the EU’s compliance with the EU Treaties, in particular those provisions requiring the EU to abide by the fundamental principles of international law.

Note 4 – Relevant procedures of the European Parliament

According to Rule 90 (6) of the EP Rules of Procedure, a proposal to refer the new FPA Protocol to the ECJ for an advisory opinion on its compatibility with the EU Treaties can be brought forward to the EP plenary by: (i) a majority of the committee responsible; (ii) a political group; or (iii) at least one?tenth of the MEPs [currently 74 Members].

Once proposed to the plenary, the EP can adopt a resolution by a simple majority to refer the envisaged FPA Protocol to the ECJ for an advisory opinion on its legality. The vote on Parliamentary consent to the FPA Protocol would be suspended pending the ECJ advisory opinion.

Font foto: Reuters

Avui la Comissària d’Afers Marins, Maria Damanaki, ha presentat l’esborrany del que considera que ha de ser la reforma de la Política Pesquera de la UE. Després de mesos de discutir-ne, ara tenim un text sobre el qual començar a treballar políticament al Parlament Europeu (així com als estatals, nacionals i regionals). En tant que membre de la Comissió de Pesca del PE és, sens dubte, el debat més important i determinant que viurem els propers mesos, fins el gener de 2013 (que és quan se suposa que hem de tenir ja un acord final).

De moment, adjunto una nota de premsa de reacció a la proposta de la Comissària i un petit document en què resumeixo algunes de propostes que com a grup Verds/ALE entenem que cal tenir en compte, i que marquen les línees vermelles del que serà la nostra postura en les discussions i negociacions imminents, tot plegat amb una idea troncal: ara no és el moment de ser tímids en la reforma, ans al contrari, toca ser valents i afrontar amb visió de futur i responsabilitat canvis estructurals de fons en els diversos fronts que afecten l’activitat pesquera (captura, cria, engreix, mercat, consum, etiquetatge, …).

NOTA DE PRENSA – Bruselas, 13 de julio 2011

Reforma de la Política Pesquera Común

La Comisión presenta una tímida propuesta que no resuelve los retos de la política pesquera de la Unión Europea.

Luego de una larga espera, la Comisión Europea ha presentado hoy una propuesta de reforma de la Política Pesquera Común. Desde Verdes/ALE creemos que la comunicación no aborda correctamente los desafíos que suponen la pesquería en la UE, fracasa notablemente al intentar implementar un mecanismo de mercado de derechos de propiedad de pesca, tratándolos como bienes privados en lugar de considerarlos un bien común. Es decir, que no garantiza el objetivo global de sostenibilidad medioambiental.

Comentando sobre la propuesta de creación de derechos de propiedad, el Vicepresidente del grupo Verdes/ALE y Eurodiputado de ICV, Raül Romeva i Rueda, remarcó:

Sin una población sana y abundante de peces, nunca habrá una industria pesquera fuerte ni comunidades pesqueras.  La mayor prioridad de cualquier política de pesca  debe ser la sostenibilidad ambiental, con instrumentos que persigan y consigan garantizar unas pesquerías sanas y sostenibles; ésta es  una condición necesaria para el desarrollo económico y social sostenible de todas las actividades relacionadas con la pesca. La Comisión Europea fracasa al continuar adoptando un enfoque que enfrenta los objetivos de trabajo y de protección de las comunidades pesqueras con la conservación de las pesquerías. Éste es un error fundamental.

La propuesta de la Comisión de establecer un mecanismo de mercado para determinar quién tiene el derecho de pesca es un gran escándalo. Otorgar derechos de pesca comerciables provocará una mayor especulación y la concentración de los derechos de pesca en las manos de quienes más pueden pagar. Todavía peor, si los permisos de pesca son distribuidos en función de  la participación histórica en la actividad pesquera, el sistema permitirá a aquellos que fueron responsables de la sobreexplotación en el pasado, continuar siéndolo en el futuro.

Las pesquerías no son un bien privado cualquiera; todo lo contrario, son un recurso natural renovable que forma parte de nuestros bienes comunes. Las personas involucradas en actividades de pesca deben demostrar que sus actividades no dañan el medio marino y que generan contribuciones significativas a las comunidades costeras, para así garantizar el verdadero derecho a pescar.

El actual sistema de descartes es totalmente ineficiente y necesitamos ponerle fin. Celebramos que a Comisión haya reconocido este hecho, pero su enfoque tímido es claramente insuficiente.  La propuesta prohíbe solo los descartes de determinadas especies de peces que son explotadas comercialmente y fracasa al intentar establecer una conexión entre la prohibición y la necesidad de mejorar las técnicas de pesca y de selección para asegurar que los peces que no se pretende pescar no sean capturados en un primer momento.

Now is no time to be timid!

Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy

After thirty years of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), fisheries in the EU are in crisis, with depleted stocks, the industry lurching from crisis to disaster and back, and the continued long-term decline of coastal communities. These trends were evident before the CFP was created in 1982 but the Policy has notably failed to redress the situation.

Today, the Commission has unveiled its proposals to reform the CFP. They include some good elements but also some dangerous ones.

The Objectives of the CFP

A good, effective policy needs clear, coherent, concise objectives. No policy can be successful if what it is supposed to achieve is not clear and understood by those who are to implement it. However, the CFP has never had that luxury.

The formal objective is to provide “sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions”.  To that are added a variety of other objectives, including the precautionary approach and such matters as the interests of consumers and the standard of living of those in the sector. Yet there is no prioritization among these sometimes contradictory aims.

It is claimed that the Treaties do not allow a prioritization among environmental, economic and social sustainability. What such a legalistic argument ignores is that without abundant fish stocks, there can be no fishing industry and no fishing communities. Nonetheless, Ministers have consistently chosen to prioritize short term economic objectives over the conservation of resources. The failure of the CFP to conserve either fish or jobs is thus no surprise.

The Commission’s proposal does not resolve this problem, in fact it adds more objectives, making it even more confusing.

The Greens believe that the revised CFP must specifically set environmental sustainability, based on the precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach, as a fundamental prerequisite for economic and social sustainability.

How Much Fish can be Safely Caught?

Ministers have routinely ignored scientific advice and set fishing quotas higher than the fish stocks could sustain, in the name of protecting jobs. The result of this approach has been depleted fish stocks and an industry struggling to survive. In recent years some progress has been made in curbing this habit by the use of management plans. For certain fish stocks, these plans establish the quotas directly, based on the status of the stock. Ministers have tended to respect these plans and consequently, some of those stocks are recovering.

The Commission is seeking to strengthen these plans in a number of ways and that must be welcomed. Fisheries is an inexact science, full of uncertainties, and the proposal recognizes that. The plans are to allow stocks to recover to levels above those capable of producing “maximum sustainable yield” (MSY), while taking into account all of the uncertainties (unreliable catch data, limited biological information, etc.) which is an important step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the proposal sets no deadline for adopting management plans.

The Greens want to be more concise and more ambitious in setting targets. Fish stocks should be maintained at levels sufficiently above those capable of producing MSY (Maximum Sustainable Yield) so that they can fulfil their role in the marine ecosystem as predators or prey, while capable of supporting higher catches and so that fisheries can be profitable without continued subsidies. Plans should be adopted to that end for all regulated species by 2015.

What about Discards?

The current situation, where vast quantities of fish and other species (birds, turtles, marine mammals, etc) are caught and thrown away, dead, is a scandal and people are quite rightly angry about it. The reason that so much is thrown away is that fishermen have been less interested in improving the selectivity of their fishing than in increasing the amount they catch.

The Commission is proposing to ban the discarding of certain (but not all) commercially exploited fish species. The fishermen will have to bring them back to shore. The fish will still be dead, so the reason for the partial discard ban is to encourage the fishermen to avoid catching them in the first place, since bringing them ashore will have an economic impact. Unfortunately, the proposal does not establish a specific link between the partial discard ban and improvements in fishing techniques to improve selectivity.

Who Should Have the Right to Fish?

This is one of the most important questions in fisheries.

The Commission is proposing to allow the market to determine who can fish, by obliging the Member States to set up a system of fishing rights (such as quotas) that can be traded or sold, which could even lead to financial speculation on quotas. Experience shows that such a system all too often leads to concentration of the right to fish in the hands of those with the deepest pockets, since they can afford to pay the highest prices.

If fishing permits are granted based on historical participation in the fishery, with those who have had larger catches receiving the largest share of the quota, this will simply allow those who have been responsible for over-fishing in the past to continue fishing in the future.

This is doubtless the most controversial part of the Commission’s proposal.

But fish stocks are not commodities, they are natural, renewable common/public resources and the right to exploit them should be conditional upon fishing in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. Those involved in fishing activities should be required to demonstrate that their activities do not damage the marine environment and that they make significant contributions to coastal fishing communities. Member States should use such criteria when they allocate the right to fish, a possibility which exists in the proposal.

The Fishing Fleets

That the EU’s fishing fleets are too large and powerful for the fish that are available to be caught is not much disputed, even if most fishermen think that it is the fleets of other fishermen that should be reduced. Much of the excess fishing capacity is due to generous subsidies over a period of decades. It is the most serious problem that the CFP must deal with for it leads to irresistible political pressure to set quotas too high and therefore unsustainable and/or illegal fishing.

Twenty years of programmes aiming to reduce this capacity have largely failed. The Commission, in its proposal, is abandoning its earlier approach of attempting to regulate the fishing fleets by requiring reductions in fleet size. Rather, it makes the simple assumption that market forces, via the tradeable fishing rights, will accomplish the necessary reductions of the fleets. The market is supposed to reduce them to the appropriate size, but nothing is provided to ensure that only the appropriate types of fishing vessels remain.

Instead, fleet reductions need to be planned and regulated, in accordance with analyses on what resources are available to be caught, with the first steps being the elimination of the most environmentally destructive fishing vessels and gears.

Regionalization of the CFP

One of the major goals of the reform has always been to establish a policy that is less centralized, less dependent on detailed decisions taken in Brussels, so as to allow more opportunity for local and regional involvement in fisheries management. Such a shift in decision-making would need extremely clear language on who is responsible for what – the Council and the parliament, the Member States, or more local bodies The Commission’s proposal as written does not provide such clarity.

The External Dimension of the CFP

The EU fleets operate worldwide with 28% of the fish caught by European fishing boats taken outside EU waters (20% in international waters, and 8% under agreements with non-EU countries. The EU is also the world’s largest importer of fish products (over 60% of fish consumed in the EU). The EU has a special obligation to establish and respect high standards in the international arena.

The Commission has, for the first time, included provisions in the basic regulation concerning the external dimension of the CFP. What is proposed is positive as far as it goes, specifying what the EU should be aiming for in its bilateral fisheries agreements – abundant fish stocks, promotion of good governance in other countries. However, it provides no means of ensuring that EU vessels operating in waters of countries with no EU bilateral agreement shall meet the same standards.

Conclusions

The CFP has been blamed for many problems, but it must be remembered that it results from a political compromise by Ministers. Full and proper implementation of the current CFP would have prevented much of the current crisis faced by both fish and the fishing sector. Member States have signally failed in the past to implement what they have agreed. This reform, and its implementation, will show whether they truly wish to have a sustainable fishery in Europe or whether they want to continue the downward spiral.

Foto: La Comissària Damanaki durant la roda de premsa a la Comissió. Font: Romeva (via iPhone)

La situació dels nostres mars i oceans és molt pitjor del que ens pensàvem (fins i tot els qui érem més realistes). Ens ho confirma un panel d’experts que compara l’actual situació amb les extincions massives que hi ha hagut al llarg de la història i que recull un article a The Independent.

Oceans on brink of catastrophe

Marine life facing mass extinction ‘within one human generation’ / State of seas ‘much worse than we thought’, says global panel of scientists

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Tuesday, 21 June 2011

The world’s oceans are faced with an unprecedented loss of species comparable to the great mass extinctions of prehistory, a major report suggests today. The seas are degenerating far faster than anyone has predicted, the report says, because of the cumulative impact of a number of severe individual stresses, ranging from climate warming and sea-water acidification, to widespread chemical pollution and gross overfishing.

The coming together of these factors is now threatening the marine environment with a catastrophe “unprecedented in human history”, according to the report, from a panel of leading marine scientists brought together in Oxford earlier this year by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The stark suggestion made by the panel is that the potential extinction of species, from large fish at one end of the scale to tiny corals at the other, is directly comparable to the five great mass extinctions in the geological record, during each of which much of the world’s life died out. They range from the Ordovician-Silurian “event” of 450 million years ago, to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction of 65 million years ago, which is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs. The worst of them, the event at the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago, is thought to have eliminated 70 per cent of species on land and 96 per cent of all species in the sea.

The panel of 27 scientists, who considered the latest research from all areas of marine science, concluded that a “combination of stressors is creating the conditions associated with every previous major extinction of species in Earth’s history”. They also concluded:

* The speed and rate of degeneration of the oceans is far faster than anyone has predicted;

* Many of the negative impacts identified are greater than the worst predictions;

* The first steps to globally significant extinction may have already begun.

(keep reading…)

“The findings are shocking,” said Dr Alex Rogers, professor of conservation biology at Oxford University and IPSO’s scientific director. “As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the oceans, the implications became far worse than we had individually realised.

“This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, in the lifetime of our children and generations beyond that.” Reviewing recent research, the panel of experts “found firm evidence” that the effects of climate change, coupled with other human-induced impacts such as overfishing and nutrient run-off from farming, have already caused a dramatic decline in ocean health.

Not only are there severe declines in many fish species, to the point of commercial extinction in some cases, and an “unparalleled” rate of regional extinction of some habitat types, such as mangrove and seagrass meadows, but some whole marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, may be gone within a generation.

The report says: “Increasing hypoxia [low oxygen levels] and anoxia [absence of oxygen, known as ocean dead zones], combined with warming of the ocean and acidification, are the three factors which have been present in every mass extinction event in Earth’s history.

“There is strong scientific evidence that these three factors are combining in the ocean again, exacerbated by multiple severe stressors. The scientific panel concluded that a new extinction event was inevitable if the current trajectory of damage continues.”

The panel pointed to a number of indicators showing how serious the situation is. It said, for example, that a single mass coral bleaching event in 1998 killed 16 per cent of all the world’s coral reefs, and pointed out that overfishing has reduced some commercial fish stocks and populations of “bycatch” (unintentionally caught) species by more than 90 per cent.

It disclosed that new scientific research suggests that pollutants, including flame-retardant chemicals and synthetic musks found in detergents, are being traced in the polar seas, and that these chemicals can be absorbed by tiny plastic particles in the ocean which are in turn ingested by marine creatures such as bottom-feeding fish.

Plastic particles also assist the transport of algae from place to place, increasing the occurrence of toxic algal blooms – which are also caused by the influx of nutrient-rich pollution from agricultural land.

The experts agreed that when these and other threats are added together, the ocean and the ecosystems within it are unable to recover, being constantly bombarded with multiple attacks.

The report sets out a series of recommendations and calls on states, regional bodies and the United Nations to enact measures that would better conserve ocean ecosystems, and in particular demands the urgent adoption of better governance of the largely unprotected high seas.

“The world’s leading experts on oceans are surprised by the rate and magnitude of changes we are seeing,” said Dan Laffoley, the IUCN’s senior adviser on marine science and conservation. “The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but, unlike previous generations, we know now what needs to happen. The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent.”

The report’s conclusions will be presented at the UN in New York this week, when delegates begin discussions on reforming governance of the oceans.

The five great extinctions

The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction (the End Cretaceous or K-T extinction) 65.5 Mya (million years ago)

Plankton, which lies at the bottom of the ocean food chain took a hard hit in an event that also saw the demise of the last of the non-avian dinosaurs. The giant mosasaurs and plesiosaurs also vacated the seas. An asteroid or volcano eruptions are thought to be to blame.

The Triassic–Jurassic extinction (End Triassic) – 205 Mya

Having a profound affect on sea and land, this period saw 20 per cent of all marine families disappear. In total, half the species known to be living on Earth at that time went extinct. Gradual climate change, fluctuating sea-levels and volcanic eruptions are among the reasons cited for the disappearing species.

The Permian–Triassic extinction (End Permian) 251 Mya

A period known as the “great dying” was the most severe of the earth’s extinction events, when 96 per cent of marine species were lost, as well as almost three-quarters of terrestrial species. The planet took a long time to recover from what has also been called “the mother of all mass extinctions”.

The late Devonian extinction 360–375 Mya

Three-quarters of all species on Earth died out in a period that may have spanned several million years. The shallow seas were the worst affected and reefs would not recover for another 100 million years. Changes in sea level and climate change were among the suspected causes.

The Ordovician–Silurian extinction (End Ordovician or O-S) – 440–450 Mya

The third largest extinction in Earth’s history had two peak dying times. During the Ordovician, most life was in the sea, so it was sea creatures such as trilobites, brachiopods and graptolites that were drastically reduced. In all, some 85 per cent of sea species were wiped out.

Waves of destruction

Case Study One in the panel’s report assesses the “deadly trio” of factors – global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia (absence of oxygen). Most if not all of the five global mass extinctions in prehistory carry the fingerprints of these “carbon perturbations”, the report says, and the “deadly trio” are present in the ocean today.

Case Study Two looks at coral reefs, and the fact that these “rainforests of the sea” (so-called for their species richness) are now facing multiple threats. The panel concluded that these threats acting together (pollution, acidification, warming, overfishing) will have a greater impact than if they were occurring on their own, and so estimates of how coral reefs will respond to global warming will have to be revised.

Case Study Three examines pollution, which is an old problem, but may be presenting new threats, as a wide range of novel chemicals is now being found in marine ecosystems, from pharmaceuticals to flame retardants, and some are known to be endocrine disrupters or can damage immune systems. Marine litter, especially, plastics, is a huge concern.

Case Study Four looks at over-fishing: it focuses on the Chinese bahaba, a giant fish which was first described by scientists only in the 1930s, but is now critically endangered: it has gone from discovery to near-disappearance in less than 70 years. A recent study showed that 63 per cent of the assessed fish stocks worldwide are over-exploited or depleted.

 Foto: Millions of dead anchovies floating at a marina in Redondo Beach, California, in March. Font: AFP/Getty

Aquest article explica perfectament perquè tanta gent ens oposem a la renovació de l’Acord de Pesca UE-Marroc. En tant que ponent a l’ombra (Shadow Rapporteur) per a aquest assumpte a la Comissió de Pesca del Parlament Europeu, reitero la meva postura contrària a la renovació de l’acord.

EUROPEAN VOICE
FISHERIES Bilateral agreements

Morocco fishing deal ‘poor value for money’

By Toby Vogel

09.06.2011

Study finds that deal is not cost-effective and that agreement could
break international law.

The European Union‘s controversial fisheries
agreement with Morocco is the least cost-effective of all the EU’s existing
fishing deals with third countries, according to a confidential study submitted
to the European Commission in December. 

An evaluation requested and paid for by the
Commission’s department for maritime affairs and fisheries describes the
results of the agreement as “rather disappointing” and says that they could
have been achieved at lower cost. The report, with several passages omitted,
was obtained by European Voice through a request for public access.

Under the terms of the agreement, which began in 2007,
the EU pays €36 million a year to Morocco in return for licences to fish in
Moroccan waters.

The agreement expired in February but continues to
apply provisionally as the Commission is seeking a one-year extension while it
prepares negotiations for a successor agreement. National experts from the EU’s
member states will hold a first discussion of the extension request today (9
June), after the Commission submitted its proposal last Friday (3 June). The
extension will require the support of MEPs, but they are not expected to vote
on it before September.

Carl Haglund, a Finnish Liberal MEP who is
drafting the Parliament’s report on the extension of the fisheries agreement,
said that the matter had been “badly handled” by the Commission. “I am not
happy that we had this sudden extension after asking for the Commission’s views
for a year,” he said. Haglund also said that he had not yet received a
translation of the evaluation report from the French original and that this had
delayed the drafting of his report. He said that an English translation was
expected this week or next week.

Reform

Maria Damanaki, the European commissioner for
fisheries, is keen on reforming the “fundamentals” of all fisheries agreements
with non-member states, according to a spokesman. But several EU member states
on the Mediterranean want to preserve their fishermen’s access to foreign
waters even where the overall cost to the Union is higher than the profit from
such access, as is the case in Morocco.

The evaluation report found that 80% of Morocco’s
public revenue in fisheries comes from the EU agreement, which accounts for
just 5% of the total catch in Morocco’s economic exclusion zone, and describes
this as a “good deal for the Moroccan side”. The report calculated that every
euro invested under the agreement generated just €0.65 in added value. The
agreement with Morocco accounts for one-quarter of spending on bilateral
agreements by the Commission’s department for maritime affairs and fisheries.

The strongest criticism of the fisheries deal with
Morocco comes from representatives of Western Sahara, annexed by Morocco in
1978. The European Parliament’s legal service has backed their claims and found
that the deal breaches international law by ignoring the rights of the
population of Western Sahara. Damanaki has said that the agreement will only be
renewed if the Moroccan government demonstrates that revenue
from the fisheries deal reaches the territory. The Commission is currently
assessing information received from Morocco on the issue.

The evaluation was conducted by Océanic Developpement,
a French consulting firm.

Font foto: European Voice

M’acaba d’arribar un document molt interessant que posa clarament de manifest com els/les ciutadans/es europeus/es consumim molt més peix del que produeixen els nostres mars, de manera que hem esdevingut un continent netament depenent dels productes marins d’altres mars i oceans.

Si a la UE només consumíssim peix provinent dels nostres mars, ens quedaríem sense el proper 2 de juliol. A partir de llavors, tot el que consumim seria importat.

L’estudi l’han fet des NEF, neweconomics (economics as if people and planet mattered, i l’editen conjuntament amb Oceans2012. 

El títol és Fish dependence – 2011 update. The increasing reliance of the EU on fish from elsewhere, i el podeu trobar aquí.

Adjunto a continuació el resum executiu.

Executive Summary

European Union (EU) fish stocks are in an unprecedentedly poor state yet fish consumption throughout Europe remains high. The EU has been able to maintain and even expand its levels of consumption by sourcing fish from other regions of the globe, both through the catches of its distant-water fleet and imports. This report highlights Europe’s increasing reliance on fish products originating from external waters for its fish supplies, and provides pointers towards a more sustainable future for dwindling global fish stocks.

nef (the new economics foundation) has estimated the degree of ‘self-sufficiency’ in fish consumption achieved by the EU as a whole and for each of its Member States; self-sufficiency is defined as the capacity of EU Member States to meet demand for fish from their own waters. We have expressed the degree of self-sufficiency in the form of a ‘fish dependence day’. Based on a Member State’s or region’s total annual fish consumption, the fish dependency day is the date in the calendar when it would start to depend on fish from elsewhere because its own supplies were depleted.

The reform of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) offers a perfect opportunity to put the structures in place to turn this situation around. To transform the management of the EU’s marine resources, the new CFP needs to provide a policy framework that will restore marine ecosystems to healthy levels and deliver a fair allocation of resources. At a minimum this will require the following actions.

Reduce capacity in line with the available resources; improve data collection, transparency and reporting; and prioritise scientific advice in determining catch quotas.

Create a context in which being profitable is aligned with doing the right thing, by making access to resources conditional on social and environmental criteria.

Promote responsible consumption among all EU consumers, and implement measures that are conducive to more responsible fishing outside EU waters.

Use public funds to deliver social and environmental goods by investing in environmentally constructive measures, research, and stakeholder involvement, as well as enforcing sustainable quotas and practices.

In order for this to happen, policy-makers need to look beyond the short-term costs that could result from reform and give priority to the long-term benefits that healthy marine resources will provide.

Després de la votació avui al Parlament Europeu de la Resolució promoguda pel PPE en què demanen que s’autoritzi un augment de les ajudes a la flota pesquera per compensar l’alça del preu del combustible (el de Minimis pujaria dels 30.000 euros actuals fins a 60.000 euros, per empresa), vull expressar la meva decepció, tal i com ja vaig fer durant el debat que va tenir lloc dilluns (veure apunts Why do I oppose to the EU and Member States to increase subsidies to fishing to compensate for the rise in fuel prices i Perquè m’oposo a augmentar els subsidis a la pesca per compensar alça preu fuel ).

Aquesta és la nota que he transmès als mitjans després de la votació:

UE-PESCA
Pesca: Convocatoria de subvenciones a los combustibles es irresponsable y contraproducente

El Parlamento Europeo votó hoy a favor de una resolución que pide más subsidios al sector pesquero, destinado a cubrir el aumento de los costes de los combustibles. Los Verdes europeos rechazan esta demanda. El vicepresidente del Grupo de los Verdes en el PE y miembro de la Comisión de Pesca, Raül Romeva i Rueda (ICV) ha valorado el voto:

“El verdadero problema de la pesca hoy es que el 70 % de los estocs en Europa están sobreexplotados, debido a que contamos con una flota claramente sobredimensionada. Gastar dinero público para mantener dicha flota es un error y una irresponsabilidad.

En el marco de la reforma de la Política Pesquera Común es más que nunca necesaria una restructuración de la flota pesquera europea para abandonar el uso de embarcaciones que consumen mucho combustible y emiten grandes cantidades de CO2, así como las prácticas y artes claramente destructivas del entorno, para avanzar hacia un modelo menos dependiente energéticamente, menos destructivo y más sostenible tanto en términos ambientales, como económicos, como sociales.

Conceder de nuevo más dinero al sector para compensar el alza de precios del fuel sólo servirá para incentivar aún más los pescadores a usar embarcaciones que consumen mucho combustible, especialmente cuando el alza del precio de éste no es un hecho coyuntural sino claramente estructural.”

Per altra banda, també he enviat una ltre comunicat, avui, demanant que no s’obri la temporada de pesca de la Tonyina Vermella d’enguany, degut a que la tràgica situació a Libia fa que sigui del tot impossible garantir que es compliran les normes de control exigides en el pla de recuperació.

Fisheries
Bluefin tuna fishery must be closed due to conflict in Libya

The Greens have called for the EU to close its bluefin tuna fishery for the 2011 season as a consequence of the conflict in Libya. The group insists that the conflict in Libya will make it impossible to properly oversee and control fishing of the critically threatened bluefin tuna and that the only solution is to close the fishery. Green fisheries spokesperson Raül Romeva i Rueda said:

“Closing the entire bluefin fishery for the 2011 season is the only responsible course of action in the current circumstances. Oversight and control of the bluefin fishery, which is difficult at the best of times, will be rendered completely impossible with a major part of the fishery lying in what is a warzone. Given the critical status of bluefin, which is effectively on life support, it would be grossly irresponsible to allow fishing in a situation where proper controls will not be carried out.

“The EU has a major responsibility for the bluefin tuna fishery given the size of its catches, the number of farms to fatten the tuna and its consumption of tuna. In order to prevent complete anarchy, the EU must close its own purse seine fishery for bluefin tuna for 2011 and begin immediate negotiations with ICCAT, the fisheries management body responsible for bluefin tuna, to close the fishery for all countries.

“If the fishery goes ahead in 2011, then the recovery plan for bluefin tuna, recently adopted with so much difficulty, will probably be a complete failure.”

Font il.lustració: Seppo Leinonen

Diumenge comença la temporada de pesca de Tonyina Vermella, però personalment demano (un cop més) aturar la pesca, i enguany amb una raó afegida: Líbia. A continuació adjunto la carta que acabo d’enviar a la Comissària Damanaki demanant-li que la Comissió Europea lideri el tancament.

Re: Bluefin tuna fishery and the Libyan crisis

Dear Commissioner

Over the past few months, I have been watching events unfold in Libya with horror, and sincerely hope that the crisis is resolved quickly and as peacefuly as possible.

In recent days, a new element has emerged as a consequence of those developments, though, that is also of great concern. That is the bluefin tuna fishery. The current crisis and prolonged military activity mean that Libya is no longer in a position to fulfil its responsibilities as a CPC in ICCAT, a fact reflected by the failure of the Compliance Committee of ICCAT to approve the Libyan fishing plan for 2011. As a consequence, all fish caught by Libyan vessels will be IUU fish. Further, given the complicated structure of the bluefin tuna fishery in terms of vessel ownership, transshipments etc., as well as the concentration of fishing effort in Libyan waters and the fact that Libya has no farms of its own, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to verify the legality of much of the tuna that will be caught this year. In short, I fear that the bluefin tuna recovery plan for 2011 is seriously compromised and will probably be a complete failure.

I feel that the EU should do its utmost to minimise the threat to the recovery of bluefin tuna in this situation.

The best solution would be for ICCAT CPCs to close the bluefin tuna fishery for 2011. Such an action would be completely justified given the impossibility of controlling fishing operations in a significant part of the most important fishing waters and thus the legality of the bluefin tuna that is caught. A closure for 2011 would also have the added benefit on increasing the probability of recovery of the stock from its current depleted status. I understand that this is a multilateral forum though and this would be difficult.

The EU has major responsibilities for the bluefing tuna stock, given its role as flag State, market State, port State, farm State, coastal State and State of beneficial ownership, all of which are clearly defined in the EU’s control regulation and IUU regulation.

There are a number of actions that the EU could take with respect to its own involvement in the fishery, before any action is taken by ICCAT.

Personally, I feel that the EU should simply close its own purse seine fishery for 2011, given the situation outlined above and the inevitable difficulties in verifying the catch certificates. I am very aware that this would be a politically very difficult decision.

At the very least, though, there are a number of very specific, fully justified decisions that the EU could take. These include:

• prohibition for any EU-flagged vessel to enter Libyan waters or, preferably, waters within a radius of the outer limit of the Libyan zone;
• closure of all EU ports to Libyan-flagged vessels (fishing, tug);
• prohibition for all EU farms or EU tugboats to accept bluefin tuna from any Libyan-flagged vessel;
• prohibition for all EU farms or EU tugboats to accept bluefin tuna from any tug that has entered Libyan waters, as shown by its VMS records;
• refusal to allow Libyan-flagged vessels from leaving any EU port (France has reportedly done this so far, whereas Malta allowed the Libyan fleet to leave Valletta);
• prohibition on receiving, via any third-country vessel, any bluefin tuna that has come from Libyan waters or Libyan fishing vessels as determined by the BCD.

In my view, these are the absolute minimum steps that the Commission should take, and would be fully justified in taking, in an attempt to reduce IUU fishing on this stock.

Yours sincerely,

Raül Romeva i Rueda

Below I explain the reasons why I am opposed to
the EU and Member States to increase subsidies to fishing to compensate for the
rise in fuel prices.

This was a topic today, in the European Parliament,
following a proposal made some colleagues, from the PPE, who claim aid increases.

It is somewhat curious that the same people who
proclaim the close of the welfare state do not have too many problems to subsidize
environmentally destructive activities and to jeopardize thus the move towards
a more responsible and sustainable fishing.

Political groups have each prepared a resolution
that will play tomorrow negotiate and vote on thursday.

My rationale as Greens Vicepresident and
Fisheries Committee Member is the following:

    A whereas all sectors in the EU dependent on
fossil oil are equally affected by the increased oil prices, except aviation
and shipping (including fisheries) since these sectors are excluded from energy
taxes on fuel (Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003) and therefore
these sectors are proportionally already much less affected by an increase in
fuel prices than other sectors;

    B whereas more than 70% of European fish stocks
are overfished;

    C whereas fuel subsidies, including exemption
from fuel taxes, are well known to contribute to, and can be the factor that
economically catalyses overfishing, since low operating costs allow fishing to
continue on overfished or depleted stocks;

    D whereas an increase in fuel prices, according
to the Commission Communication (2008)453 is hitting in particular those with
the largest energy consumption most, i.e. beamtrawlers, with fuel costs in some
cases corresponding to 60% of value of the landed fish, while coastal vessels
fishing with passive gear are far less affected, with fuel costs corresponding
to only between 5 and 20 % of value of landed fish;

    E whereas the situation is exacerbated by the
inability of many fishermen to pass on the costs of their activities in their
sale price, owing to the current market structure and the dominance of
corporate intermediaries,

    F whereas the global fishing fleet has been
estimated to account for at least 1,2% of global oil consumption;

    G whereas the de-minimis, state aid to the
fisheries sector (Commission Regulation (EC) No 875/2007 of 24 July 2007) was
already increased tenfold in 2007 from €3000 to €30 000;

    H whereas the EU has recognised the IPCC
conclusions that industrialised countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions by 25-40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels and the European Council
has decided on an EU objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% by
2050;

    I whereas the European Parliament called for the
EU to shift to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020 in its resolution
adopted 25 November 2010;

    J whereas EU Member States at the Biodiversity
summit in Nagoya in October 2010 are committed to eliminate environmentally
harmful subsidies by 2020 at the latest;

    K whereas G-20 Leaders committed in 2009 to
phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term;

    L whereas in many Member States, the available
EU subsidies have too often been used to support the development of
large-scale, energy-intensive, environmentally destructive fishing fleets, on
the assumption that energy would remain inexpensive;

    M whereas high energy costs are not a temporary
phenomenon, but rather structural and permanent in nature, and whereas the
sector must adapt accordingly;

    N whereas certain Member States have initiated
schemes aimed at reducing fuel consumption by their fleets and whereas such
innovations are to be supported;

    O whereas the discussions in WTO in the context
of the Doha round are focussed on how to eliminate distorting fisheries
subsidies;

  
1. Concludes that there is an urgent need for the European fishing
fleets to restructure so as to move away from energy-intensive, environmentally
destructive fishing vessels and gear and to adopt more benign practices that
require less energy and are more sustainable in the long term, environmentally,
socially and economically;

  
2. Calls upon the Commission to launch a study of the effects of
removing the Member States’ obligation to exempt marine fuel from taxation,
introducing a minimum level of energy tax on marine fuel and including the
maritime transport sector in the EU emissions trading system;

  
3. Considers that granting more public money to the fisheries sector
because of increased fuel prices would send the wrong signal during the reform
of the CFP and provide an incentive for vessel owners to use more powerful and
fuel-consuming engines;

  
4. Considers that fuel subsidies, including foregone tax, result in
reduced costs that restore profitability and create incentives for continued
fishing in the face of declining catches, leading to overfishing, fleet
overcapitalization, reduced economic efficiency of the sector, and lost
resource rent;

  
5. Believes that an increase in de-minimis from €30 000 to compensate
for an increase in fuel prices would hinder adaptation of the fishing industry
to the inevitable continued increase in fuel prices that affects all sectors
dependent on fossil fuels, bearing in mind that the fishing sector is less
vulnerable than other sectors due to the tax exemption;

  
6. Believes that increasing fuel subsidies, at the time of general
cutbacks in government spending, and following pledges by the G-20 leaders to
phase out fuel subsidies and agreement by WTO members to bring fisheries
subsidies within WTO disciplines, is likely to undermine EU’s leadership in
ongoing negotiation processes, sending a signal that would encourage other
countries to also increase subsidies and contributing to a vicious circle that
has already made operations costs of destructive fishing techniques on the
worlds oceans much too low, thus contributing to disastrous overfishing;

A continuació exposo les raons per les quals m’oposo a que la UE i els Estats Membres augmentin les subvencions a la pesca per compensar l’alça de preus del fuel.

El tema és motiu avui de debat al Parlament Europeu arran d’una proposta que han fet alguns col.legues del PPE que reclamen que augmentem les ajudes.

No deixa de ser curiós que els mateixos que proclamen l’estretament de l’Estat del Benestar no tinguin massa problemes a subvencionar activitats manifestament destructives del medi ambient a curt termini, i posin així en perill l’activitat pesquera artesanal i responsable a mig i llarg termini. 

Per tal que cadascú en tregui les seves conclusions, els diferents grups hem preparat cadascun una proposta de resolució que demà tocarà negociar, i demà passat votar.

Els meus arguments en tant que membre de Verds/ALE són els següents:

• whereas all sectors in the EU dependent on fossil oil are equally affected by the increased oil prices, except aviation and shipping (including fisheries) since these sectors are excluded from energy taxes on fuel (Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003) and therefore these sectors are proportionally already much less affected by an increase in fuel prices than other sectors;
• whereas more than 70% of European fish stocks are overfished;
• whereas fuel subsidies, including exemption from fuel taxes, are well known to contribute to, and can be the factor that economically catalyses overfishing, since low operating costs allow fishing to continue on overfished or depleted stocks;
• whereas an increase in fuel prices, according to the Commission Communication (2008)453 is hitting in particular those with the largest energy consumption most, i.e. beamtrawlers, with fuel costs in some cases corresponding to 60% of value of the landed fish, while coastal vessels fishing with passive gear are far less affected, with fuel costs corresponding to only between 5 and 20 % of value of landed fish;
• whereas the situation is exacerbated by the inability of many fishermen to pass on the costs of their activities in their sale price, owing to the current market structure and the dominance of corporate intermediaries,
• whereas the global fishing fleet has been estimated to account for at least 1,2% of global oil consumption;
• whereas the de-minimis, state aid to the fisheries sector (Commission Regulation (EC) No 875/2007 of 24 July 2007) was already increased tenfold in 2007 from €3000 to €30 000;
• whereas the EU has recognised the IPCC conclusions that industrialised countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels and the European Council has decided on an EU objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% by 2050;
• whereas the European Parliament called for the EU to shift to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020 in its resolution adopted 25 November 2010;
• whereas EU Member States at the Biodiversity summit in Nagoya in October 2010 are committed to eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020 at the latest;
• whereas G-20 Leaders committed in 2009 to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term;
• whereas in many Member States, the available EU subsidies have too often been used to support the development of large-scale, energy-intensive, environmentally destructive fishing fleets, on the assumption that energy would remain inexpensive;
• whereas high energy costs are not a temporary phenomenon, but rather structural and permanent in nature, and whereas the sector must adapt accordingly;
• whereas certain Member States have initiated schemes aimed at reducing fuel consumption by their fleets and whereas such innovations are to be supported;
• whereas the discussions in WTO in the context of the Doha round are focussed on how to eliminate distorting fisheries subsidies;

0. Concludes that there is an urgent need for the European fishing fleets to restructure so as to move away from energy-intensive, environmentally destructive fishing vessels and gear and to adopt more benign practices that require less energy and are more sustainable in the long term, environmentally, socially and economically;
0. Calls upon the Commission to launch a study of the effects of removing the Member States’ obligation to exempt marine fuel from taxation, introducing a minimum level of energy tax on marine fuel and including the maritime transport sector in the EU emissions trading system;
0. Considers that granting more public money to the fisheries sector because of increased fuel prices would send the wrong signal during the reform of the CFP and provide an incentive for vessel owners to use more powerful and fuel-consuming engines;
0. Considers that fuel subsidies, including foregone tax, result in reduced costs that restore profitability and create incentives for continued fishing in the face of declining catches, leading to overfishing, fleet overcapitalization, reduced economic efficiency of the sector, and lost resource rent;
0. Believes that an increase in de-minimis from €30 000 to compensate for an increase in fuel prices would hinder adaptation of the fishing industry to the inevitable continued increase in fuel prices that affects all sectors dependent on fossil fuels, bearing in mind that the fishing sector is less vulnerable than other sectors due to the tax exemption;
0. Believes that increasing fuel subsidies, at the time of general cutbacks in government spending, and following pledges by the G-20 leaders to phase out fuel subsidies and agreement by WTO members to bring fisheries subsidies within WTO disciplines, is likely to undermine EU’s leadership in ongoing negotiation processes, sending a signal that would encourage other countries to also increase subsidies and contributing to a vicious circle that has already made operations costs of destructive fishing techniques on the worlds oceans much too low, thus contributing to disastrous overfishing;

Foto: Porta d’un arrossegador afaitant el sòl marí. Font: Greenview

Fa un any i mig feia aquesta reflexió en el marc d’unes jornades a Roses destinades a avaluar la importància de la creació de reserves marines. Els plantejaments segueixen essent vàlids en el marc de la reforma de la Política Pesquera Comuna.

La intervenció es divideix en dues parts: Part 1 i Part 2.

 ****

Hace un año y medio hacia esta reflexión en el marco de unas jornadas en Rosas destinadas a evaluar la importancia de la creació de reserves marinas. Los planteamientos siguen siendo válidos en el marco de la Reforma de la Política Pesquera Comuna.

La intervención se divide en dos partes: Parte 1 y Parte 2.

Foto: Mapa de zones marines protegides. Font: WWF.

Diversos científics ens recomanen que, per conservar els nostres mars i oceans, i que en el futur els nostres infants en puguin gaudir, hauríem d’acordar que almenys en el 20% d’aquests fossin decretats Reserves Marines. Tenint en compte que en l’actualitat la superfície marina protegida no arriba ni a l’1%, l’aventura es preveu titànica.

I és precisament ara que estem buscant sortides a aquestes crisi multidimensional quan té més sentit que mai.

Com explica perfectament un dels científics catalans més internacionals, n’Enric Sala, una reserva marina no deixa de ser res més que un compte d’estalvi del qual se’n deriven uns beneficis a partir dels interessos que genera (siguin ambientals, econòmics o socials). Mentre mantinguem els diners del compte allà, sense tocar-los, podrem viure dels interessos, però si els retirem del fons que conforma el compte d’estalvi, aviat ens quedarem sense res.

Per altra banda, com també diu n’Enric, ningú ho podrà aconseguir sol, ens cal un compromís de múltiples actors, fant cadascun d’ells la seva feina. Jo ja fa temps que estic convençut que aquesta és una mesura urgent, prioritària, vital! I confio que quan vegeu aquesta extraordinària exposició que fa n’Enric, entendreu perquè ho dic.

Tan de bo algun dia siguem majoria els qui pensem així, però mentrestant ens tocarà treballar per arribar-hi.

Quan més triguem a posar-nos-hi, més ens costarà fer-ho, i ja anem tard.

Comencem per creurens’ho, comencem ara, comencem aquí.

Gràcies Enric, per il·luminar-nos el camí de manera tan clarivident.

‘Treure del mar peixos abans que tinguin temps a reproduir-se és, simplement, idiota’. No se m’acut una manera més fina de dir-ho. La frase, però, no és meva, sinó que l’he manllevat a un dels cientifics, Reiner Froese, que aquest matí hem tingut ocasió d’escoltar al Parlament Europeu.

És, malauradament, un símptoma de l’absurd. Urgeix canviar la dinàmica ja, abans no sigui massa tard.

És per això que els Verds/ALE, i concretament els dos responsables de la Comissió de Pesca, Isabella Lovin i jo mateix, hem organitzat aquest matí un hearing (debat) amb alguns cientifics i la Comissària d’Afers Marins per tal que ens expliquin de quina manera podem saber quant de peix podem pescar de manera sostenible? (How much fish can be safely caught?)

Del debat m’han quedat clares algunes idees, que resumeixo:

Primer: El 42% del comerç global de peix i derivats són importacions de la UE. Per tant, som altament responsables de la situació actual, i ens toca liderar el canvi model.

Segon: tothom té un paper. Els científics han de poder determinar, sense
ingerències polítiques, quant de peix es pot pescar de manera sostenible…

…
els responsables polítics han d’establir les mesures de gestió basant-se en
recomanacions científiques i el principi de precaució…

… el sector ha
d’emprendre reformes estructurals assumint que sense peix no hi ha activitat possible…

…
i els consumidors/es han de ser conscients que el peix és un bé comu (i cada cop més escàs) i que
han de practicar i promoure un consum responsable.

Tercer, com a societat hem de respondre a la següent pregunta: quin es nivell de risc (per a la sostenibilitat i la conservació dels estocs) que com a
societat estem disposats a assumir en l’explotacio d’un recurs/bé comu, com es
la pesca?

En seguirem parlant.

The Greens/EFA are pleased to invite you to
the public hearing on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy organised by
MEPs Isabella Lövin, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Jean-Paul Besset and Keith Taylor:

HOW MUCH FISH CAN BE SAFELY CAUGHT?

Tuesday 3 May 2011 9.00-12.30

European Parliament P7C50

Greens believe that a precautionary approach
must form the basis of the Common Fisheries Policy. The reform must ensure a
CFP in which decisions on fisheries management do not lead to further depletion
of fish stocks but allow them to recover to abundant levels that can support
sustainable exploitation in the long term.

Presentations will be made by :

    * Commissioner Maria Damanaki

    * fisheries scientists from Europe and Australia
(Justin Cooke, Rainer Froese, Tony Smith, Poul Degnbol)

    * Greenpeace (Sebastian Losada).

The importance of independent scientific
advice will be addressed, and the Australian approach to management will be
explained.

Acabo de participar en la presentació de l’informe World Ocean Review. Es tracta d’un dels estudis més complerts publicats recentment (sinó el més complert) que aborda els problemes dels oceans des de múltiples angles, tots ells entrelligats: sistema climàtic, química oceànica, costes, polució, ecosistemes marins, pesca, energia, transport, coneixements mèdics, Llei del mar.

El document ha estat possible gràcies a les aportacions d’un equip de gairebé quaranta investigadors de diverses disciplines (són aquests), dirigits per Nikolaus Gelpke (Director General de Maribus gGmbH i editor mareverlag) i pel Prof. Martin Visbeck (President del Cluster d’Excel.lència “The Future Ocean”), i a l’edició de maribus en cooperació amb Future Ocean Kiel Marine Sciences, International Ocean Institute i mare.

Està escrit de manera extraordiàriament planera i considero que es tracta d’un material de consum massiu que hauria de ser llegit i consultat per tota mena de professionals relacionats amb la legislació, la divulgació d’opinions, consultories, món científic, educació, comunicació, periodisme,…

Fins i tot la Comissària d’Afers Marins, Maria Damanaki, present a l’acte, s’ha compromès a fer-lo llegir a tot el seu equip.

Adjunto un extracte de la introducció, però el text sencer es pot trobar al lloc web oficial de World Ocean Review.

“Worldwide, the winter of 2010 was the warmest in the past 131 years. Global climate change has caused a gradual rise in the Earth’s average temperatures. In the coming years the rate of glacial melting will probably accelerate. Sea-level rise will become more rapid. Present calculations indicate that there will probably be a rise of at least 80 centimetres within this century, with as much as 180 centimetres being predicted for the worst-case scenario.

The immense water masses of the ocean act as a buffer, storing considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and heat from the atmosphere. Climatic changes therefore only gradually become noticeable. Scientists anticipate that if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, the sea level could rise by as much as 5 metres by the year 2300. Most of the “mega-cities”, with populations greater than 10 million, are located on or near the coasts. It would require enormous sums of money to protect them, and presumably many of them will have to be abandoned. The ocean may be buffering the most severe consequences of climate change for now. But in the long run we can only hope to avoid these if we strictly curb greenhouse gas emissions today. Experts are concerned that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of methane hydrate could break down due to the warming of seawater – gas masses that are lying inertly in solid, frozen form in the sea floor sediments today. A portion of the methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, could then rise into the atmosphere and further accelerate the process of climate change – a vicious circle. (…)

Humans are destroying the marine environment not only through pollution, but also through greed. 80 million tonnes of fish with a market value of around 90 billion US dollars are caught every year. As a result, the fish stocks are now severely overfished or are completely depleted. “

(de la introducció, Nikolaus Gelpke and Martin Visbeck )

Font: Portada informe World Ocean Review 2010

És cada cop més evident que l’accident nuclear a Fukushima comporta una contaminació radioactiva important dels aliments al Japó (veure, per exemple, aquest lloc web amb informació prou rellevant sobre la gravetat de la situació). Fa dues setmanes les autoritats japoneses van prohibir la venda de més d’una dotzena d’hortalisses i llet crua procedent de les zones més pròximes a Fukushima, i d’altra banda l’abocament d’aigua contaminada al mar implica també contaminar via radiació (iode i cessi) els productes procedents del mar.

L’entrada a la UE, via importació, d’aliments possiblement contaminats (iode, cessi) procedents del Japó és un tema que preocupa cada vegada més gent. I amb raó. Especial atenció cal dedicar al peix i altres productes del mar, així com amb els vegetals (sobretot espinacs, que també els en comprem força).

D’aquest tema, per exemple, en vàrem parlar ahir amb la Comissària de Pesca, Damanaki, qui va emfatitzar que la UE importa poques quantitats de productes d’origen marí del Japó, però que en qualsevol cas ho estan supervisant. tanmateix, també va advertir si la radiació continua i s’estén, podria arribar a contaminar àmplies zones del Pacífic, i d’aquella zona sí que importem grans quantitats de productes de mar.

Tal i com ho veig, les mesures anunciades per la Comissió Europea sobre les importacions japoneses de productes frescos són del tot insuficients. Per a fer aquesta afirmació em baso en les explicacions que ens ha donat la nostra col.lega d’Europe Ecologie, Michèle Rivasi, qui a més va ser la fundadora en el seu moment de la CRIIRAD, un laboratori francès de mesurament radioactiva creada en el moment del desastre de Txernòbil.

Segons ella, les primeres anàlisis dels productes alimentaris mostren alts nivells de radioactivitat en l’ordre de 54.000 Bq per exemple / kg de iode 131 (27 vegades el nivell permès), i 1900 Bq / kg per al cesi en els espinacs recollits 100 km al sud de Fukushima.

Aquests nivells de radioactivitat són tan alts que prenent poc menjar contaminat ja comporta que se superi el límit de dosi màxima permesa per a la població.

Una dada fa fredar: N’hi ha prou amb que un nen de 2 anys d’edat ingereix 370 g espinacs (que suposen 15.000 Bq / kg), o un de 10 anys d’edat en mengi poc més d’un quilogram,, per tal que superin el límit anual de radiació permesa, excloent la contribució d’altres aliments i altres radionúclids presents!

Arran d’aquests valors alarmants, la Comissió Europea va anunciar mesures de control sobre les importacions de tots els aliments del Japó, els mariscs i peixos inclosos. Aquestes mesures inclouen les proves de 10% o 20% dels productes rebuts.

El problema és que els valors permesos a Europa són molt més alts que els permesos al Japó d’avui i les recomanades per l’OMS, la qual cosa és inacceptable.

Per altra banda, el passat mes de febrer vàrem votar al PE la revisió d’una Directiva d’Euratom sobre la contaminació radioactiva dels aliments en cas d’accident nuclear [1], el Parlament Europeu va demanar una revisió dels valors màxim permesos a Europa en cas d’accident.

Aquesta nova avaluació dels valors s’ha de fer amb urgència, i per experts que estiguin  lliures de conflictes d’interessos amb la indústria nuclear!

Malauradament, la Comissió Europea va rebutjar immediatament totes les propostes del Parlament.

El dossier relatiu a aquest assumpte es troba ara a la taula del Consell i després dels esdeveniments de Fukushima, és imperatiu que les recomanacions del Parlament Europeu siguin escoltades.

Un altre cop, per tant, el problema no és tant el Parlament Europeu, com els governs.

Rebo un comunicat de Greenpeace en què m’informen que avui es reuneixen amb 40 representants del sector pesquer de bajura per tal d’acordar conjuntament una estratègia comuna de cara a l’actual reforma de la Política Pesquera Comuna.

Jo mateix fa temps que mantinc contactes amb organitzacions defensores d’aquesta mena d’entendre la pesca que, malgrat les dificultats que tenen per organitzar-se i fer-se sentir a Brussel.les (no tenen els recursos ni el temps dels grans grups industrials), mereixen ser escoltats, especialment donat que, tal i com ho veig, són l’única esperança que ens queda per tal de poder reformar el model de pesca actual si volem que existeixi algun futur, no ja llunyà, sinó inmediat, per als nostres mars i oceans, per a la gent que en viu, i per què ens en puguem seguir alimentant. En vaig parlar fa poc a l’apunt 2011-2012: claus per a un nou model de pesca.

Així doncs, observo amb atenció els passos que aquests col·lectius de pescadors artesanals estan fent, així com els seus esforços per el·laborar un pla i unes propostes conjuntament amb les principals ONG ecologistes, com per exemple Greenpeace o WWF.

COMUNICADO DE PRENSA

2 de abril de 2011

PESCADORES ARTESANALES Y GREENPEACE PIDEN UNA REFORMA DE LA POLÍTICA PESQUERA COMÚN MÁS SOSTENIBLE

La organización ecologista demanda que en esta reforma europea se prioricen los intereses de la pesca de bajura, más respetuosa con el medio ambiente y con el ecosistema marino.

Greenpeace y más de 40 representantes del sector pesquero de bajura, procedentes de todos los caladeros españoles, se reúnen hoy en Madrid (1) para establecer de manera conjunta las bases sobre las que debería basarse la reforma de la Política Pesquera Común (PPC). Entre otros temas, en esta reunión se definirá el concepto de pesca de bajura y se reivindicará el derecho al acceso de los recursos. Como conclusión, se establecerá una hoja de ruta para llevar las demandas de la pesca artesanal a la Unión Europea.

España es un país pesquero; el 80% de la pesca está formada por pesca artesanal y el 20% restante es gran altura. Esta diferencia entre la pesca artesanal y la pesca industrial se hace más evidente cuando se tratan las ayudas pesqueras. España ha recibido tres veces más subsidios que el resto de los países de la UE, en los últimos años esta cantidad alcanza el valor de 2.600 millones de euros. Sin embargo, este dinero no ha ido destinado a la flota mayoritaria, la artesanal, que es la que más empleos genera (unos 35.000 directos e indirectos) sino a las grandes flotas, que suponen únicamente el 20% del total y que pescan el 87% de las capturas en aguas del Pacífico y el Atlántico norte, donde provocan un fuerte impacto social y medioambiental.

El Gobierno español está fomentando la desaparición de la pesca artesanal, financiando con fondos públicos el desguace de estas embarcaciones, mientras apoya la construcción y mejora de grandes barcos. El futuro de las pesquerías que, hasta ahora, ha estado dominado por los intereses de la flota de altura y gran altura debe cambiar.

“Greenpeace quiere dar voz a los pescadores artesanales españoles para escuchar sus demandas, ya que son ellos quienes tienen que defender su futuro”, ha declarado Celia Ojeda, responsable de Océanos de Greenpeace. “La nueva PPC debe reformarse de manera sustancial hacia una pesquería sostenible, pero sobre todo debe escuchar a todos los pescadores”.

Las anteriores PPC han fallado: el 77% de los stocks están sobreexplotados y las flotas tienen una elevada sobrecapacidad. Greenpeace recuerda que esta reforma es una oportunidad para un cambio en la gestión de las pesquerías. Europa, como tercera potencia pesquera, debería asumir sus responsabilidades y España, como principal flota europea, debería comprometerse con la sostenibilidad.

“Greenpeace exige al Gobierno español que deje de ayudar a la extinción de las pesquerías locales en favor de las de las grandes flotas industriales, que destruyen el medio marino. España debería defender a sus pescadores artesanales y fomentar la protección de los océanos”, ha añadido Ojeda.

Greenpeace pide que la nueva Política Pesquera Común reduzca la sobrecapacidad eliminando las grandes y destructivas flotas, que establezcan las cuotas según los datos científicos, que protejan los ecosistemas marinos a través de una red de Reservas Marinas y que penalicen, sin subvenciones, a aquellos países que, como España, no están cumpliendo las normativas europeas y que fomenten y desarrollen la pesca artesanal.

Nota:

(1) El encuentro “Pesca artesanal y reforma de la Política Pesquera Común” se celebra de 9:00h a 18:00h en el Círculo de Bellas Artes (C/ Alcalá, 42. Madrid). Durante la jornada estará disponible para todo el público una exposición fotográfica sobre la pesca artesanal gallega, griega y africana.

Para más infomación:

Celia Ojeda, responsable de la campaña Océanos de Greenpeace, 638 101 735.

Prensa de Greenpeace: Isabel Rivera, 626 99 82 48.
Foto: Greenpeace