EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FISHERIES COMMITTEE EP Fisheries Com 9-10_11_2016.pdfEuropean Bureau for...

European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD) 10 Rue de la Science, 1000, Brussels, Belgium - T +32 (0)2 230 30 70

1 | P a g e

EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT

FISHERIES

COMMITTEE 10-11 October 2016

REPORT


2 | P a g e

Table Of Contents

Votes .................................................................................................................................................................. 3

- Establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks ....................... 3

- Sustainable management of external fishing fleets ................................................................................ 3

- Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on reciprocal access to

fishing in the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden ........................... 3

Presentation by Commission on delegated and implementing acts. ..................................................... 3

Characteristics for fishing vessels (recast) .................................................................................................... 3

An integrated European Union policy for the Arctic .................................................................................. 5

Discharge 2015: General budget of the EU - European Commission ...................................................... 6

2015 discharge: European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) .................................................................... 6

Exchange of views with the Commission on total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas for the

Baltic Sea .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Multi-annual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks ...... 8

Presentation by DG MARE of a study entitled The EU fish market – 2016 Edition.................................. 10

Conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical

measures ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

Presentation by Policy Department B of a study entitled ‘Seafood Industry Integration in the EU’ . 13

Conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical

measures ........................................................................................................................................................ 13

Management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention Area of the

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) ........................................... 15

Financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union ............................................................. 16

Draft Amending budget no 4 to the General Budget 2016 Update of appropriations to reflect the

latest developments on migration and security issues, reduction of payment and commitment

appropriations as a result of the Global Transfer, extension of EFSI, modification of the staff

establishment plan of Frontex and update of revenue appropriations (Own resources)……………17

Specific conditions to fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic, provisions for fishing in

international waters of the North-East Atlantic and repeal of Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002………18

Report on the Committee on Fisheries delegation visit to Thailand from 31 October to 4 November

2016…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18

You can check all documents discussed in the meeting here and here

http://www.emeeting.europarl.europa.eu/committees/agenda/201611/PECH/PECH(2016)1109_1/sitt-3331696

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/pech/events-hearings.html?id=20161020CHE00041


3 | P a g e

VOTES

Establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks

The Council position at first reading and on the draft recommendation made by the rapporteur Diane Dodds (NI) was adopted during this session by the PECH Committee .

Sustainable management of external fishing fleets The adoption of draft report was postponed until the meeting on the 5 th December.

Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on reciprocal access to fishing in the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden The draft interim report and recommendation made by Jørn Dohrmann (ECR) were adopted during this session by the PECH Committee .

Presentation by Commission on delegated and implementing acts.

The president of the Committee Alain Cadec (EPP, FR) first indicated that, after a request from the Committee, the deadline for objections has been extended until the 5th January 2017 on a delegated act regarding the discard plan for the North Sea. The European Commission (EC) indicated it had been working on 6 discard plans important for the implementation of the landing obligation (LO). In regards to the North Sea discard plan, the EC stressed that a corrigendum related to the start of the landing obligation for cod in 2007, as requested by the European Parliament (EP), is not necessary. Instead, the EC suggests ad ding a recital to the TACs and quota regulation to be adopted next month stating that the LO for cod will apply from 1st January 2017. The EC clarified that Natura 2000 areas within the North Sea discard plan are closed to fishing, but transit is allowed as long as gear is stored away following relevant regulation. On delegated acts on the North and South Western Waters demersal species, the South Western Waters pelagic discard plan, the Mediterranean demersal discard plan, the clams in Italian waters discard plan, and the turbot discard plan in the Baltic Sea, were all discussed during the Expert Group meeting in July and adopted in October. Ulrike Rodust (S&D, DE) posed some questions on the North Sea discard plan in relation to sole and exemptions applied to this species , which the EC requested to get in writing since they are very technical questions. Similarly, she asked why exemptions of 6% in 2016 were suggested to


4 | P a g e

be applied in 2017 for the South Western Waters discard plan, to which the EC responded that only some exceptions have been approved and this was done on a provisional basis. Finally, she questioned why the EC could not come up with its r ecommendation for the venus clams in the Mediterranean Sea earlier than in October? To this, the EC stated that there lengthy discussions in order to come up with a robust national discard plan which delayed the process. Clara Eugenia Aguilera Garcia (S&D, ES) requested some clarity for Article 3 in relation to demersal species and survivability exemptions in the Me diterranean Sea, particularly if it has to be renewed every year. The EC indicated that MS have to submit additional discard data by May 2017, so they are waiting on this to evaluate. Gabriel Mato (PPE, ES) asked to what extent Belgium is concerned on the external fleet for the pelagic, and the EC stressed they will look into it and come back with an answer.

Characteristics for fishing vessels (recast)

Rapporteur: Werner Kuhn (PPE) Responsible: PECH (Fisheries Committee) Opinions: JURI (Legal Affairs Committee) · Consideration of draft report · Decision on deadline for tabling amendments The rapporteur Werner Kuhn (PPE, DE) explained that this is just a legal exercise with the idea of simplifying the existing legislation, based on a systematic collection of a whole body of legislation that will be then codified. The content will be kept e.g. agreements, but the technical aspects could be amended. He stressed that some aspects of fishing vessels such as the length, width, ending and commissioning need to be considered, and indicated that there will be a delegated act calling the EC to check every 5 years. Since no major concerns were stressed by any of the MEPs, the rapporteur stated that 8 technical changes need to be made but that the report can be overall accepted. The EC welcomed the positive attitude by the MEPS. It stressed that the delegation of power is the only concern in terms of modification of content, and indicated that the wording can be changed for clarification.

Deadline for Tabling Amendments: 14 th November Voting in PECH Committee: 5th December Voting in Plenary: 27 th January 2017

An integrated European Union policy for the Arctic Rapporteur for the opinion: Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE)


5 | P a g e

Responsible: AFET (Foreign Affairs), ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Security Committee) · Consideration of draft opinion · Decision on deadline for tabling amendments The rapporteur Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE , PL) highlighted the economic and social meaning of this report for many MS and for Europe (EU). He stated that commercial fishing activities have to respect the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and align with international law in order to be coherent. He stressed the need to be careful in how we respond to the opportunities brought through Climate Change to fish in the Arctic, and how fishing in the Arctic may lead to incorrect labeling of fish products entering the EU, so efforts are required to make sure they comply with labelling rules. He also stated that fishing activities will have to respect UNCLOS, MS’s rights, the 1920 Bergen Treaty, and avoid discrimination amongst fishermen from different countries in the use of natural resources. The president of the Committee Alain Cadec stressed the importance in guarantying no discrimination in the use of natural resources and in ensuring sustainable use of resources and protecting indigenous fish stocks. In his view, this report represents a step in the right direction in terms of opening these grounds to sustainable fishing. Ricardo Serrao Santos (S&D, PT) hoped that US stays align with international agreements to the ocean, and stated that also Canada and others involved on this would have to collaborate and come to an agreement. He stressed that the Arctic is essential for global biodiversity and so it needs to be preserved through sustainable fishing of species such as cod, but also crustaceans and bivalves. He finally stated that we need to be careful as there are other economic interests in the area, and concluded that local indigenous populations have to be respected. Liadh Ni Riada (GUE/NGL, IE) stressed the need to protect the Arctic, to set up robust control procedures, and be extra vigilant on this issue given the results of the US election. The EC informed that it is working on a dialogue with indigenous people and setting up a stakeholder forum for the Arctic, and to be envisaging a high level event to mark the forum for next spring with Federica Mogherini and Karmenu Vella to represent MS. The EC also indicated that some negotiations have started with interested parties in order to create a binding instrument to regulate fishing activities in the Arctic . Further, it is working to bring activities in line with the reformed CFP and based on existing scientific advice . It finally stated that there is a need to better define the Arctic region geographically, that resources will be applicable to internat ional labelling system, and that the EC will support any MS’s right to fish in the Arctic. Deadline for Tabling Amendments: 14 th November Voting in PECH Committee: 5th December (opinion) and 24 th January (leading Committee) Voting in Plenary: February 2017


6 | P a g e

Discharge 2015: General budget of the EU - European Commission

Rapporteur for the opinion: Alain Cadec (PPE) Responsible: CONT (Budgetary Control) - Joachim Zeller (PPE) · Exchange of views The rapporteur Alain Cadec indicated that the draft opinion will be available in the next few days and suggested granting the charge. He also asked for greater transparency in the fisheries sector section, but indicated to be reassured there is an internal control system set up by DG MARE that provides sufficient guarantee that the risks of not implementing the Maritime and Fisheries Fund (MFF) adequately are managed. In Jose Lopez Blanco (S&D, ES) ’s view there is a positive trend when it comes to financial management that has been maintained through a low cumulative error. The EC expressed its agreement regarding the need for more transparency in terms of how the EMFF cumulative error rates are reported for the fisheries sector . It also indicated that the latest state of play in terms of the reservations made in its annual report include one reservation covering 5 MS for the EFF, which resulted in the interruption of payments of about 8 million euros. In terms of implementation, it is going slow on the ground but all existing 27 programmes have received prefinancing already. The EC finally stated that only some MS have made required administrative procedures towards the EMFF, so for the moment this is the main break in terms of implementation. Alain Cadec concluded that the Committee could grant this plan without much problem, and stressed that MS have to be informed to hurry up with the implementation process.

2015 discharge: European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) Rapporteur for the opinion: Linnéa Engström (Verts/ALE) Responsible: CONT (Budgetary Control) - Inés Ayala Sender (S&D) ·Exchange of views The EC stated that the document is clear and to the point. It indicated that the budget has not changed for years, and auditors highlighted some improvements the agency can apply. The EC stated that it can grant the budget for next years. The rapporteur Linnéa Engström (Verts, ALE) approved the Agency’s annual account, and indicated she will present the report in January next year. Jose Lopez Blanco stressed his concern in terms of lack of transparency, as auditors pointed out internal issues. Further, he suggested considering a rise in the Agency’s allocation of funds and staff.


7 | P a g e

Examination of draft opinion: January 2017

Exchange of views with the Commission on total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas for the Baltic Sea Mr Alain Cadec first highlighted that the Council approved the TACs and quotas for next year on the 10th of October disregarding the EC’s proposal based on ICES advice. He stressed that TACs and quotas have to respect what is stated in the multiannual plan, and expressed his disappointment on the absence of the Council at the meeting. He posed two questions to the EC: 1. How does the Council justify not taking the EC proposal based on ICES advice? And with what scientific argument did it do so?; and 2. Do the TACs and quotas proposed for the Baltic respect the multiannual plan and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)? In response, the EC stated that the Council followed most of the proposal and in some cases even exceeded the TACs and quotas proposed. In its opinion, decisions almost entirely followed ICES’s ices advice and believes the choice of TACs and quotas is justified and will allow fishing to reach MSY. MEPs also showed concerns about the scientific advice upon which C ouncil has based its decision and how the EC has accepted those, and there was a general disappointment that the Council was not present to defend its position. Jarosław Wałęsa specifically requested for the Council to make public the scientific advice supporting its decision and stressed the concern of NGOs and civil society on this issue. He specifically asked the EC 1) how it expects to combine max fishing mortality of both recreational and commercial fishing in 2017, and how this will reflect a recovery of the stock above MSY; 2) how fishing mortality resulting from agreed TACs for the Baltic cod complies with the legislation; and 3) given that the politically agreed TAC for the Eastern Baltic cod exceed ICES advice, does the EC consider ICES advice too precautionary? Along these lines, Linnéa Engström reinforced the need to respect the multiannual plan and to get detailed justification from the Council on why the upper ranges of MSY are used. Furthermore, she asked how the negotiations with Russia will be affected. Richard Corbet (S&D, GB) questioned if the EC had considered withdrawing the Council’s proposal, and wondered if it is not it a legal obligation to respect the multiannual plan. Peter Van Dalen (ECR, NL) asked the EC to justify how it could agree with the 65% reduction of TACs and quotas for cod when its proposal and ICES advice suggested a 80-90% reduction. He suggested to initiate a legal procedure, request a meeting or send a letter to the Council, and ultimately decide whether Council’s opinion on this proposal is needed or not. Werner Kuhn also stressed the concern of the sector and NGOs and the need to find a balance solution and compromise. In his view, Russia has good plans in place for recovery of species that could be followed, and an extension on the reduction of the quotas may have to be accepted at the end. Ulrike Rodust expressed that first should be the preservation of stocks , but she welcomed that fishermen were for the first time considered in the plan. However, she questioned how the Council intends to check on recreational activities including catch allowances and closure periods.


8 | P a g e

In response, the EC stated that Council’s proposals are still compatible with the objective of bringing stocks above the limit value, added that ICES also agrees that its approach is questionable for stocks that increase yearly making it too precautionary, and stressed its belief that NGOs often do not understand calculations done by EC and that Council advice is public and accessible. The EC stated that allowances were made for Russia’s fishing in their calculations, and overall it ensured that the proposal is based on accurate scientific advice, it is in line with the multiannual plan for the Baltic and will ensure the sustainability of the stocks. Furthermore, the EC stressed that it is important for the EU to show support to the fishing sector after this strong cut, and indicated that MS are already doing a good job in controlling catches. Alain Cadec closed up this exchange of views stating there is a clear disagreement on the management plan and that the Committee does not share the EC’s analysis, and is therefore not satisfied with what the EC has noted.

Multi-annual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks Rapporteur: Ulrike Rodust (S&D) Responsible: PECH (Fisheries Committee) Opinions: DEVE (Development Committee) – Decision: no opinion BUDG (Budgets Committee) – Decision: no opinion ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Security Committee) – Decision: no opinion REGI (Regional Development) – Decision: no opinion ·Exchange of views The rapporteur Ulrike Rodust stressed she will submit a more structural proposal later. She requested the EC includes the consideration of pelagic stocks and the ecosystem approach in the proposal, some clarification on what species and stocks correspond to each group, what the dif groups mean in Article 2, clarification also on the potential impact of the discard plan on this multiannual plan (MAP) and if there would be an Impact assessment to it, and finally some technical clarifications on Articles 4, 8 and 10. MEP Alain Cadec stressed the need to trust that there will be co-negotiations with the Council but stated that management plans are not negotiable. The shadow rapporteur Jens Gieseke believe the EC is doing well at using the Baltic Sea plan as a model, although it is very ambitious and some measures from the Baltic plan are very stringent so it needs to be adjusted (e.g. Article 4, 8, 5, 6, 17). He further made suggestions to


9 | P a g e

Annex 1 and 2, requested to clarify the definitions for groups and species, and questioned the ability to produce scientific advice to ensure precautionary approach when data does not seem to be enough. Finally, he asked to what degree Article 12 was legally binding and how the issue of choke species was going to be approached. MEP Peter Van Dalen indicated there is a meeting on the 25th of November where they will meet with the fishing community to discuss on this issue. He then asked the EC how is it going to address the issue of choke species, why is not whiting in group one and the potential implications of Brexit. Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL, NL) stressed her concern about transposing the Baltic plan to the North Sea plan since their contexts differ greatly . In her view, both demersal and pelagic species need to be considered, having 3 options to apply management is not good enough, and conditions should be stricter to avoid overfishing and protect species . Annie Schreijer-Pierik (EPP, NL) asked why the target in the proposal was higher if stocks are in good state and about the impact of technical measures in connection to Brexit. Further, she stressed that the EC and Council need to lay down a multiannual plan in good time for landing obligation implementation. Gabriel Mato stressed that the mixed species stocks have not been dealt sufficiently well here, and requested to know the timeline for specific conservation measures in Article 9. Ian Hudghton (Greens/EFA, GB) also asked about Brexit implications, considerations of choke species and the effect of the new CFP in terms of incentivizing regional measures. The EC stressed to take into account the ecosystem approach as indicated by CFP, and stated that considering pelagic species in the MAP is difficult given the scientific knowledge on species interactions or multispecies stocks is still limited. It also indicated it will provide a detailed explanation in writing about the groupings and species. The implementation of the LO, it said, is still on track but it is going slow and the process requires continuous learning from experience. It stated that the EC has taken essential elements of Baltic plan but some things have been changed based on their assessment. The EMFF is not included yet but it will be, and Annexes can be adapted quickly. The EC stressed that one of the main motivations of the proposal is how to reach MSY in regards to choke species . In relation to whiting, the EC stated to be still waiting on more data to finally assign it into a group. It also stressed that the North Sea is a real mixed fisheries and it is looking forward to working and putting together a plan that ensures sustainability of resources. In this sense, the EC will continue working as normal regardless of Brexit as it is not official until UK triggers Article 50.

Presentation by DG MARE of a study entitled The EU fish market – 2016 Edition

The study was published at the end of September 2016, and includes an online tool developed by the EC to improve transparency and efficiency of fisheries and aquaculture. The tool is an


10 | P a g e

observatory one that includes a website with publication and data, and offers different services including publications and others. The focus is on what the industry needs, and there is a report available online. During the presentation it was highlighted that the EU represents the largest market for fish and that there has been a 10% increase on fish production lately. Market supply has increased due to internal production, but so far the EU has never been self-sufficient. In fact, the EU’s ability to supply the market is about 50%, but this varies greatly depending on the species. The consequence is that the EU imports 4 times what it exports, for what our internal market is very important (e.g. Spain, Italy, France and UK represent 80% of landed product). EU’s aquaculture has generated 1 billion extra euros in 10 years and Spain, UK, France and Italy represent 50% of fish production consumed in the EU. Annual consumption by individual is increasing, but this varies greatly across countries. Spain, Italy and France represent 50% of spending but only 30% of the population. Tuna, cod and salmon comprise more than a third of consumption, but they are either primarily or entirely imported. Overall, DG MARE concluded that fish consumption, consumer prices, and community production are increasing, and the EU’s self-sufficient rate is also improving. Werner Kuhn asked for more information about protection for fisheries and aquaculture, and how is that going to help provid ing food. He also asked about the situation of the market, and stressed his interest in knowing how the EU’s external relations in terms of for example partnership agreements will work. The EC stated to not see the link between the EU market and rest of the world, and mentioned that when referring to community production the activity of EU outside of EU waters is included.

Public hearing on ‘Marine protected areas: valuing marine biodiversity and ecosystems for the blue economy’

First, the EC stressed that biodiversity is not secured any more in the EU, and stated that MPAs can be used as a socio-economic tool that ensures fisheries protection and food security if they are properly conceived, designed and managed. They can even contribute to Climate Change mitigation through e.g. blue carbon, and adaptation and security through e.g. soil fixation. MPAs are cost-effective and nature-based solutions with potential for job creation, blue economy and growth and social benefits (e.g. cultural, spiritual and recreational). Agreement and participation, stakeholder involvement and improvement of management is essential. The EC stated to be already working on a study on this.

Prof. Dr. Emmanuel Goncalves (MARE and ISPA, Portugal) stated the need of MPAs because of undisputable scientific evidences showing oceans are in great trouble and scientific consensus showing that things need to change. He stated there is a recent race towards MPAs designation but only 5.5% of MPAS are within national jurisdiction and about 95% allow fishing, so partial protection is the norm and reserves are rare. He stressed


11 | P a g e

that ecologically connected networks of MPAs are critical for Climate Change resilience, to ensure meeting with international targets of protecting and achieving sustainability of fisheries. In his opinion, the issue requires urgent actions by decision makers, and society needs to press for change since we have more than enough information to act now.

Mr. Wouter Van Broekhhoven (Science and Policy advisor at VisNed, Netherlands) offered an overview on the issue for the North Sea and from the fisheries sector’s perspective. In his opinion, MPAs are useful for protecting features but not so much for protecting the resources. MPAs or other tools can be used for conservation depending on what is intended to preserve. He stressed that support is needed to further develop approaches that specify the level of fishing effort while maintaining a target level of seafloor integrity. Also, the net effects of proposed MPAs have to be determined taking into account the displacement of effort, and alternative sites have to be considered. And finally, the impacts of MPAs have to be evaluated on specific parts of the fishing industry.

Prof. Dr. Henning Von Nordheim (responsible for international protection at the BFN, Germany) discussed the cases of Germany and the North East Atlantic from a national administration’s point of view. In his view, MPAs should help us increase ecosystem’s performance and make them more resilient. They often have positive effects, and the different protection categories allow adapting to each situation. MPAs networks are in his opinion essential as the Natura 2000 shows. In his opinion, it is difficult to achieve the 10% target in the whole of the EU by 2020, but at least the MPAs that exist should be rightly implemented. Germany is doing well at EU level with 45% protection and as such are feeding what they have done into the EU process through consultation. In terms of blue economy, MPAs are an essential pillar to the precautionary approach and has to be the basis of blue economy.

Dr. Samantha Burgess (WWF European Policy Officer) provided an overview of the state of the ocean and gave evidences from WWF projects where MPAs have shown benefits in the Mediterranean Sea. In her view, there is a lot to be done at EU level and blue economy represents a challenge as it interferes with spatial planning, and there is a potential for different sectors’ interests to conflict. In her opinion, MPAs are essential for a sustainable blue economy; integrated ocean governance requires an ecologically coherent network of MPAs in addition to regional marine planning; and a set of principles for a Sustainable Blue Economy developed by WWF could be useful for future governance and actions.

Dr. Serge Michel Garcia (Chair of Fisheries Expert Group of IUCN) firstly argued that the MPAs global coverage targets suggested (10%, 30%, 50 or even 60%) are often politically driven to make cheap and fast designation, they are usually not effective enough, underplay social and economic issues, are not efficient for pollution or other threats, and are difficult to be achieved. The benefits of MPAs in fisheries management are sometimes difficult to demonstrate and vary, they tend to cause social disruption, and violations of rights are common. In his view, MPAs are useful when no other management instrument is in place and when implemented case by case and governance is linked to human rights. MPAs are in principle not good for distributional equity and justice or to ensure food security. He concluded that international targets are relevant at global but not at local level, participation of stakeholders is required, and careful analyses have to be done to ensure food security of local communities.


12 | P a g e

During the questions and answers session MEPs made some statements and posed some questions to the speakers. Annie Schreijer-Pierik stressed the need to get the right balance to achieve our target for the fisheries sector and to increase our consideration of local communities. Ulrike Rodust questioned what we are doing wrong in communicating to fishermen that MPAs are beneficial for fisheries. Ricardo Serrao Santos highlighted management is most times not been done rightly. He asked Prof. Goncalves if there is consistency in the current MPA network in EU?; and to Van Broekhoven if the fishing in clusters effort is worth. Peter Van Dalen questioned if MPA are needed when you already have a management plan in place, and if Germany has really done enough. Werner Kuhn stressed the importance of MPAs for the future of CFP policy, and the need to consult various bodies and sectors to come up with a common solution based on mutual trust. Liadh Ni Riada indicated that it is imperative to have stakeholders on board. Observation and monitoring, she said, are essential but it is difficult at this stage to be sure on the scientific data. She highlighted the number of existing incentives e.g. for research, and called for consensus in the approaches currently used under different flags. Renata Briano (S&D, IT) highlighted that MPAs are only well accepted if fishermen are involved from the very start, so we need to focus on examples and extrapolate. In her view, it would be good if the sectors discuss this among each others.

In response, Prof. Von Nordheim stated that to reach fishermen in accepting MPAs it is necessary to come together with the same understanding between conservationists and the fisheries sector, and stop suspicions. Prof. Goncalves indicated there are very good examples of conservationists and fishermen working together that need to be replicated. He also stressed that MS have the responsibility for ocean conservation and should take action to ensure fish for the future. MPAs can be a solution, but need stakeholder involvement and can be difficult to implement. If establishing MPA for fisheries purposes they should be designed and monitor accordingly, which could have a spillover effect in economy. The fishing industry has to be involved and MPAs have to be adapted to regions and areas. He also stressed that we need to integrate fisheries in the blue economy and the need to clarify the purpose of the tools we are using based on the objectives. He finally stated the problem of food security only matters at local scale since we have enough food to feed the world, and other tools like aquaculture can be used. Mr. Van Broekhhoven stressed that even though the North Sea is one of the most intensively fished seas in the world there are still areas that are not being fished, and urged people to look at the responses on Daniel Pauly’s papers and discharge the idea that fish will disappear. In his experience, fishermen accept evidence, and so more evidences are needed to promote MPAs. He questioned the existing evidences of spillover effect in the North Sea. In his view, MPAs are not for fisheries management and are not needed if there is a good management fisheries plan. Finally, he highlighted the need to investigate the detrimental effects of closing areas to the ecosystems. Dr. Burgess stated that MPAs should be designed locally and that there are examples from WWF of collaboration with fishermen for successful MPA implementation. Local community engagement is critical, and that existing regulation such as the MSFD, CFP, MSP, etc. offer opportunities to manage things properly. Finally, Dr. Garcia stressed that fishermen claim spillover effect does not exist, highlighted the need to control the fishing activity in and around MPAs, and concluded that importing fish costs money so ensuring fishing can be done locally is always a better solution.


13 | P a g e

Presentation by Policy Department B of a study entitled ‘Seafood Industry Integration in the EU’

The study carried out by Profundo (Research & Advice) was based on a quantitative analysis of the level of structural vertical and horizontal integration of a series of selected seafood companies from different countries (Denmark, Estonia, France, Portugal, Spain and UK). They found significant differences between countries in terms of vertical and horizontal integration and the methods they were using. Differences were explained by the cost, ease of access, fisheries management systems in place, and firm performance. They also found there were more similarities between nations in non-structural horizontal integration. In conclusion, they stressed that further research is needed, and that there is a potential impact of the LO and Brexit, and recommended to establish platforms at EU levels for quota trading, renting, swapping and fish auctions.

Ulrike Rodust questioned if it is possible to get the data they need in terms of data protection and how the EP can help for example in running or launching the EU platform. Annie Schreijer-Pierik asked how small scale fishermen and activities can be protected. The study leader stated that there are a number of organisations that collect data already and are accessible through for example annual reports public in their websites. Also, he indicated that there are lots of supporting mechanisms to allow fishermen and small scale fishermen in particular to carry on fishing.

The EC stressed that there is a call for tender to promote further research, and indicated they are already working with MS and the cooperation has so far been very positive. It further questioned if the platform could be created through the Markets Advisory Council (MAC).

The president of the Committee Alain Cadec stated that the idea of setting up a platform is very interesting, and could be especially useful for TACs and quotas. He stressed the need to discuss this together and maybe be set it out it in the agenda, but for now the EC should start working on it.

Conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures

Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato (PPE) Responsible: PECH (Fisheries Committee) Opinions: DEVE (Development Committee) – Decision: no opinion ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Security Committee) – Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) ·Exchange of views The rapporteur Gabriel Mato stated that the regionalization instrument brought by the CFP offers flexibility and give more competence to MS in applying the rules, so it is positive.


14 | P a g e

Equally, multiannual plans are another instrument to apply these technical measures, and the future of regionalization will have to go through joint recommendations within them. Such joint recommendations would have to fulfill a series of criteria including references, nets, fishing gear, etc., and also have to allow for real time verification. In his view, it is important to define what measures can be regionalized and how. In regards to simplification (as per last meeting), he stressed he is waiting on the EC to send the complete list of technical measures. He further asked the EC about the legislative situation of the technical measures before the Lisbon Treaty. Also, he questioned the EC on the absence of a co-decision process in the Mediterranean Sea and why it is treated different t han other regions. Finally, he requested to know the EC’s opinion on Brexit and its potential implications on this proposal, and asked why the Outermost Regions (ORs) are not considered in Annex 11. The president of the Committee Alain Cadec asked the EC to clarify what are the steps and timetable for how regionalization will work. Renata Briano (S&D, IT) also stated the importance of regionalization for the application of technical measures, but highlighted that regionalization has to be clear. She asked the EC to clarify the procedure in the case that two countries made two opposite recommendations. Further, she indicated that the list of species regarding small drift nets, when fishing less than 50 kms from the coast, might need to be modified, and stated that restrictions under Article 8.5 should be left to regionalization. Annie Schreijer-Pierik agreed with the rapporteur in terms of regionalization, highlighted that mutual support among MS is essential for implementation, and wondered if fisheries and fishermen were given sufficient importance. Ruza Tomasic (ECR, HR) also stressed the importance of regionalization and questioned the EC on the privileges in treating the Mediterranean differently. Clara Eugenia Aguilera Garcia made 4 points: 1) there are lots of rules and regulations of activities under technical measures that are against regionalization; 2) there is a mismatch between the proposal and the multiannual plan; 3) there are no socioeconomic characteristics mentioned in the measures; and 4) what would be the implications of Brexit on the proposal. Liadh Ni Riada agreed with the points made by the colleagues and further asked the EC how the technical measures and multiannual plans are going to be implemented in parallel. The EC stated that it is working on transferring the technical measures included in the TACs and quotas regulation into this proposal , so all technical measures could be found in one place. It explained that the approach to the Mediterranean Sea is differ ent than to the rest simply because the Mediterranean is different in the sense that it has no TACs and q uotas, it has the RFMO General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean , protected areas, closure of fishing areas, seasoning fishing, etc. The EC stated that is not reacting to Brexit for the moment and until UK activates article 50. It indicated that the list of prohibited species has been copied from the Mediterranean regulation. In regards to the pilot projects on poles , the EC indicated to be already monitoring this closely and to be waiting on some information from MS. It stressed that when applying the synergies between the multiannual plans and technical measures the latter must respect multiannual plans, as stated in the legislation. The EC also explained that regionalization will be implemented in a similar way to how the landing obligation has been implemented by MS. Finally, it indicated that there is a process of dialogue


15 | P a g e

with MS, ACs, scientists, the EC, etc. to see if the measures and information provided are adequate. Gabriel Mato added that there is a meeting with stakeholder in few weeks to which the shadow rapporteur will be invited. He stressed to agree with Aguilera in the 4 points she made, and stressed his disappointment and concern in regards to Brexit and the absence of response by the EC. Annie Schreijer-Pierik stressed her concern on the fact that regionalization in her view represents the risk of the fisheries communities losing power. Liadh Ni Riada stated that she is concerned that EC is ignoring Brexit.

Management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention Area of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato (PPE) Responsible: PECH (Fisheries Committee) Opinions: ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Security Committee) – Renata Briano (S&D) ·Exchange of views Gabriel Mato first indicated that the EC has reliably reflected the recommendations in the proposal, so he is happy with it. However, he stressed his concern about the transshipment and questioned if recommendations should be implemented or not, or even expanded. He also stated that the vessels of contracting parties of ICCAT should be included. Further, he asked the EC to state the swordfish quota for the Mediterranean Sea, and if a recovery plan similar to the one for tuna was needed. He also asked if the blue fin tuna quotas could be increased for next year, and wondered if the EC could take a look at this and bring this point to the forthcoming ICCAT meeting. Clara Eugenia Aguilera Garcia agreed with Mato and asked the EC if less drastic measures other than TACs and quotas could be set for the swordfish in the Mediterranean, or increase TACs and quotas for blue fin tuna instead. Alain Cadec reminded that TACs and quotas are decided by the Council following a EC proposal and suggested that a multiannual plan might be good in this situation. Ruza Tomasic stated that we need to establish a discussion with people on the ground. Renata Briano indicated that a review on the allocation of mechanisms for TACs and quotas might be needed to ensure there is fair allocation and that fishermen are involved. Werner Kuhn stated that it is essential to decide on what would the position of the EP would be for ICCAT, not just for quotas but for partnership agreements, quotas outside EU, etc.


16 | P a g e

In response, the EC explained it is trying to define the terms for a strict and faithful transposition. In regards to the scope of the measures, the EC indicated that the rules have to extent to the 3 countries and include vessels of contracting parties. In relation to the forthcoming ICCAT negotiations, it indicated it has put forward a proposal that will be agreed with MS. Finally, it stated that it will do its best to address the concerns of MS and the EP. Gabriel Mato asked the EC to reveal the EC’s mandate and its position for the ICCAT meeting for example in terms of extending quotas or extending a multiannual plan, but the president of the Committee Alain Cadec reminded that the EC could not provide any more information at this stage. Report presentation: 28th Feb 2017 Deadline for Amendments: 6 th March 2017 Voting Plenary: July 2017

Financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union Responsible: BUDG (Budgets Committee) – Decision: no opinion ·Exchange of views with Commission representatives The EC stated it is conducting the revision for the financial regulation, which covers the provision regulation, with the objective of optimizing spendings. Regarding the MFF considerations in the proposal, it encourages the use of simplifying costs, clarification for management, and transfer of resources by MS among others. The rapporteur was not present so the EP position on the proposal was not presented. Clara Eugenia Aguilera Garcia agreed with the objective of simplifying but in her opinion Omnibus is a bad legislative format as it only focuses on simplification and it is not appropriate to deal with 15 legislations. She stressed that simplification of budget has nothing to do with those 15 modifications, since only some are to do with fisheries. The president of the Committee Alain Cadec stressed that this is far from perfect, but it is necessary to have tools that allow us to get to a certain outcome in achieving simplifications .

Draft Amending budget no 4 to the General Budget 2016 Update of appropriations to reflect the latest developments on migration and


17 | P a g e

security issues, reduction of payment and commitment appropriations as a result of the Global Transfer, extension of EFSI, mo dification of the staff establishment plan of Frontex and update of revenue appropriations (Own resources) Responsible: BUDG (Budgets Committee) – José Manuel Fernandes (PPE) ·Exchange of views with Commission representatives The aim, as stated by the EC, is to update the number of credits across dif ferent heading of budgets. It considers a slight reduction for control and enforcement purposes. The EC indicated that maritime and fisheries interests are considered and that it includes a reduction on the sustainable partnership agreements to align resources with the needs. In regards to the payment appropriations, the EC stated that a shared management increase and direct management reduction, as well as a reduction for control and enforcement , are considered. The rapporteur Ulrike Rodust regretted the reduction applied to the EMFF and the fact that there is no opportunity for transferring obligations, and stressed her concern on the EC not meeting with its obligation regarding the partnership agreements. She stated this reduction of the fisheries budget should not be seen as a precedent but just an exception. Clara Eugenia Aguilera Garcia stressed her strong concern on the fact that there was no possibility to give an opinion through a normal procedure to discuss how 140 millions are going to be transferred to other projects by MS. The president of the Committee Alain Cadec clarified that this amending budget came out of the Budget Committee and did not agree with Clara Aguilera’s view, but was happy with Rodust’s letter.

Specific conditions to fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic, provisions for fishing in international waters of the North -East Atlantic and repeal of Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 Rapporteur: Isabelle Thomas (SD) Responsible: PECHE (Fisheries Committee) ·Consideration of Council position


18 | P a g e

·Decision on deadline for tabling amendments The rapporteur Isabelle Thomas stressed that there has been great achievements in the negotiations with the Council in terms of control and sanctions , and that at this stage (after 4 years of hard negotiations) it would be a shame to put forward amendments that delay the process and send us back to the starting point. Gabriel Mato expressed his dissatisfaction with the results but agrees it is the best they could achieve. In this sense, the president of the Committee Alain Cadec stated this was the result of a compromised agreement and, although is not perfect, is not worthwhile to start this process again.

Report on the Committee on Fisheries delegation visit to Thailand from 31 October to 4 November 2016 Linnéa Engström highlighted the great welcoming and attitude change after the yellow card was issued; even when harsh and direct questions were made they received accurate answers on what they are doing to improve situation. She stated that it is still questionable whether control measures put in place will be successful. The working conditions on fishing vessels are still very poor but crew transshipment is no longer allowed, which is very important regarding human trafficking. The delegation was impressed of the changes they have done in 1 year, so they are up for cooperation with the EU, who has to keep a close eye and cooperation with the country. She stated the very positive outcome of the trip overall.

Gabriel Mato, who also went on the trip, highlighted there is still a lot to do in terms of fight against IUU fishing and social and labor rights, but they also need to be given some time to implement the changes. Overall, things are going better than he thought. Ulrike Rodust suggested to recognize their efforts and not to issue another yellow card even if things are not perfect yet. In contrast, Izaskun Bilbao Lopez (ALDE, ES) disagreed on the fact they are ready to get the green card since there are still many issues to be solved regarding IUU fishing, the definition of artisanal fishing, the reflagging of Indonesian boats, or the improvement of human trafficking. In her opinion, maintaining the yellow card will help them to continue changing things. Ricardo Serrao Santos was also impressed with the progress made, and justified slow changes due to poverty, immigration, differences between the EU and Asian approach, etc. He also stressed his doubts about the country’s intensive fishing activities since they import fish from Spain and France, and only the Thailand Navy would have the logistics to face such fishing activities.

The president of the Committee Alain Cadec congratulated the delegation for the trip . In his opinion, Thailand should retain the yellow card, but this is up to the EC, and a greed with Rodust that they may need to arrange a meeting with the EC and delegations to discuss this issue.


19 | P a g e

5 December 2016, 15:00-18:30

Calendar of meetings from January to December 2017

June Wednesday, 25 January, 15h00-18h30 (Constitutive meeting)

Thursday, 26 January, 9h00-12h30

Monday, 27 February, 15h00-18h30

Tuesday, 28 February, 9h00-12h30

Wednesday, 22 March, 9h00-12h30

Wednesday, 22 March, 15h00-18h30

Thursday, 23 March, 9h00-12h30

Monday, 24 April, 15h00-18h30

Tuesday, 25 April, 9h00-12h30

Tuesday, 25 April, 15h00-18h30

Tuesday, 30 May, 15h00-18h30

Wednesday, 21 June, 9h00-12h30

Wednesday, 21 June, 15h00-18h30

Thursday, 22 June, 9h00-12h30


20 | P a g e

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FISHERIES COMMITTEE EP Fisheries Com 9-10_11_2016.pdfEuropean Bureau for...

Documents

Transcript of EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FISHERIES COMMITTEE EP Fisheries Com 9-10_11_2016.pdfEuropean Bureau for...