Raül Romeva i Rueda

Aquest matí a la Comissió de Pesca hem debatut tres temes que posen de manifest la importància de conceptes tan determinants de cara a la credibilitat de la UE com són la coherència, la responsabilitat i el control.

Coherència: La Comissió de Pesca hem rebutjat aquest matí de votar en favor de l’Acord de Pesca entre la UE i Guinea. Ha estat una votació ajustada: 11 a favor de posposar decisió (bàsicament Verds/ALE, ALDE, PSE) i 10 a favor de continuar (sobretot PPE i Conservadors). Després de les massacres de dimarts a Conakry entenem que no podiem seguir com si res autoritzant un Acord de Cooperació Pesquera que hauria gestionat un govern criminal com el del Dadis Camara. El debat ha estat tens i complex, per les moltes connotacions tècniques que té, però calia fer-ho, per coherència.

Responsabilitat: el segon tema ha estat el cada vegada més urgent afer de la Tonyina Vermella i la seva incorporació a l’Apendix I de CITES, incorporació a la qual dono suport. Hem tingut un intercanvi d’impressions amb representants de la Comissió i, en tant que ponent per a l’assumpte, i representant del Parlament Europeu a la propera reunió de la ICCAT, he reiterat l’enorme responsabilitat que tenim per salvar,  no només l’espècie sinó també els nombrosos sectors socioeconòmics que en depenen.

Control: en tant que ponent del Parlament sobre el Reglament de Control de la UE, finalment, he enviat una carta a tots els Ministres d’Afers Pesquers demanant-los que en el marc de la revisió del Reglament actualment en curs, tinguin en compte diversos aspectes entre els quals la necessitat que, per poder garantir la millora dels estocs pesquers i la biodiversitat als nostres mars i oceans cal, imperativament, millorar els mecanismes i els mitjans de control, també els de la Comissió, així com enfortir les capacitats sancionadores en cas d’infracció. Adjunto a continuació la carta que he fet arribar als 27.  (segueix…)

**********************************************
Ms./ Mrs.

Minister for Maritime Affairs                     

XXX

Brussels, the 30th September 2009

Dear Minister,

The proposal for a new control regulation that is currently discussed by Council with a view to its adoption at the Council meeting on 19/20 October next is doubtless one of the most important pieces of fisheries legislation in many years. The current regulation dates from 1993 and is clearly showing its age.

In 2007, the European Court of Auditors published a study on the control regimes relating to the conservation of resources. The results of the study were stark:

·          catch levels were unknown

·          the Commission was not able to identify errors in information from the Member States

·          the inspection systems could not guarantee that infringements were detected

·          penalties were not sufficiently deterrent

·          infringement proceedings before the European Court of Justice are long, cumbersome and rarely effective.

The Court issued a clear challenge:

If the political authorities want the CFP to achieve its objective of sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources, the present control, inspection and sanction systems must be strengthened considerably.

The Commission accepted this challenge, as can be seen by the depth and breadth of the proposal that it tabled for a new regulation.

The European Parliament gave a very broad support to the Commission’s proposal. This is entirely consistent with the commitment of the European Parliament for many years to promoting good standards for control in European fisheries. In fact, the Parliament’s report went further than the Commission’s proposal in a number of areas, adopting amendments that would strengthen the Community control regime, including:

·          that operators guilty of a serious infringement would not be eligible for EFF subsidies or be able to fish under the terms of a Fisheries Partnership Agreement

·          that information on serious infringements would be available to the public

·          that the Commission’s emergency powers would include the suspension of fishing rights outside the EU, and

·          that third countries would have access to the infringement history of vessels seeking to fish in their waters under the terms of a Fisheries Partnership Agreement

This report was adopted in plenary by a massive margin – 564 in favour, 42 against and 49 abstentions.

It now remains to be seen if the Council will also be able to rise to the challenge of adopting a control regulation that is strong enough to ensure that the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy are fully respected.  It is for this reason that I am writing to you, as Minister, in order to encourage you to support a number of key provisions of the Commission’s proposal.

The Presidency compromise of 25 September (15694/08 PECHE 312 – COM (2008) 721 final) has already seriously weakened the proposed control regulation, to the extent that, in my opinion, the effectiveness of the overall regulation would be compromised.

Undoubtedly among the most controversial proposals are the additional measures that the Commission seeks to ensure that the Member States fulfil their legal obligations under the CFP. An effective control regime depends upon an inter-acting pair of responsibilities. On the one hand, the fishing sector must abide by the rules – gear restrictions, quotas, reporting requirements, etc. National law and the current control regulation provide ample powers for the Member States to enforce the rules.

Equally important, though, is the ability of the Commission to ensure that the Member States use those powers. The Court of Auditors report rightly pointed out that currently, the only means the Commission has to ensure full compliance by a Member State is to go to the European Court of Justice. However, as the Court noted, this is a  lengthy and costly process that is only rarely effective. The state of marine resources is such that sharper and more expedient tools are needed by the Commission to ensure compliance. If the Commission is denied those tools, the efficacy of the entire CFP could be put at risk.

Article 95 is the best example. As proposed, it would allow the Commission, under carefully constrained conditions, to withhold certain types of financial assistance from Member States that do not implement the provisions of the control regulation, if such a failure leads to a serious threat to conservation. These conditions are important – the Commission could not withhold money whenever it wished, but only if there were a serious failure by the Member State concerned and if, as a direct consequence, fishery resources, upon which the entire industry depends, were seriously threatened. This provision, which was suggested by the Court of Auditors, would go a long way to ensuring that the rules of the CFP are applied in the same manner in all Member States and that, thus, fishermen are treated equally and equitably across the Community – the much-sought-after “level playing field”. The opinion of the Legal Service of the European Parliament affirmed that such a provision was compatible with Community law.

Other weakened provisions of the proposal are the following:

·          Minimum size for electronic logbooks, VMS and prior notification for landing. The Commission proposed 10 metres and the Parliament agreed, though we included a delay of 18 months. The current text would limit these to 12 metres, which would exempt many thousands of vessels from these technologies. (Art. 9, 15, 17)

·          Community inspectors: Their role has been clarified and, in some ways, strengthened. This is vital if they are to fulfil their responsibilities. (Art. 70, Art. 88 bis)

·          Field of action of national inspectors: The current text does not allow a national inspector to conduct an inspection of a vessel from his/her country in the coastal waters of another Member State. Since, under the Basic Regulation, some vessels are allowed to fish in neighbouring territorial waters, this is an unnecessary restriction on inspections. The Parliament imposed no such restriction (Art. 71)

·          Serious infringements: We welcome that three new serious infringements are added. However, the current compromise text rejects the monetary value for minimum and maximum fines and instead refers to the value of the catch. This is a significant weakening of the deterrent effect of the regulation; the Parliament supported the Commission on this. (Art. 82)

·          Fisheries Control Agency: The Commission proposed several additions to the mandate of the Agency, all of which were entirely supported by the Parliament. The current compromise removes three key provisions. The Agency would not be authorised to conduct audits of national control systems, or to help the Commission in evaluating the application by Member States of the CFP, or to monitor the overall functioning of the control regime of the CFP. The Agency has provided ample evidence of its expertise in control matters, as well as its independence and objectivity. The fairest and most effective way to ensure that all Member States fulfil their responsibilities, and that fishermen are treated equally all across the Community, is to strengthen the abilities of the Agency to monitor Community control work. (Art. 112)

Given the current situation with respect to fishery resources and the economic crisis, all governments have a responsibility towards the public and the tax-payer. Citizens would find it politically unacceptable to continue as before, with public money available to Member States that persist in acting irresponsibly by implementing lax control regimes that undermine the Common Fisheries Policy.

When these matters are discussed at the upcoming Council meeting, I urge you to support the strongest possible control regulation for Community fisheries. The future of the fishing sector, as well as the marine environment, depends upon this crucial piece of legislation.

Sincerely,

Raül Romeva i Rueda

MEP

 ********************************************

Foto: Dones cap al Mercat de Peix a Guinea Conakry. Font: AFP