Committee on Fisheries Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
PECH European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Amendment five, in favor? Against? Abstentions ? Approved. Amendment six in favor?
Sorry. No. No. Amendment 296 is in favor. Against.
Abstentions are approved. Compromise Amendment Six now. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ?
Adopted. Amendment 10 in favor? Against. Are the abstentions approved? Amendment 11.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved. The joint vote on 300 was adopted to go to number 13 with votes in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Amendment 13 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. Amendment 14.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Approved. The block vote is now on amendments 15 and 16.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Approved. We move now to the Seventh Amendment, section 17.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Approved. 298.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Approved. Amendment 19 in favor?
Against? Are the abstentions approved? Amendment 20. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions ? Approved. Amendment 21? In favor? Against.
Abstentions ? Approved. Amendment 22 in favor? Against. Abstentions ?
Approved. Compromise amendment 7. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ?
Approved. Then we move on to 300. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected.
28, those in favor? Against. Abstentions? Approved. 29 in favor?
Against. Abstentions ? Approved. 301. Those in favor?
Against. Abstentions are approved. 31 in favor? Against. Abstentions approved.
Amendment 32. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Approved.
Amendment 33, in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved. Now the block vote: 34, 55, 100, 101, 102, 104, 109, 110, 121, 123. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions ? Approved. Amendment now. We're now at 35 in favor, against, and abstentions approved.
36 in favor, against, abstentions approved. 302. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected.
37 in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Approved. Amendment 38.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Approved. 39 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are approved. Amendment 40. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions are approved. 41 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. 42 in favor.
Against. Are the abstentions approved? 43. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions are approved. Amendment 44. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved.
Amendment 45, in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved. 46 in favor. Against.
Abstentions are approved. 47 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. 48 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are approved. 49 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
50 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. Compromise amendment eight, which adopts 51, 303, 52, 304, 53, and 305. If adopted, they will fail.
If those are in favor? Against. Abstentions approved. So, the compromise amendment is approved. 54 now.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions approved. Amendment 306, in favor? Against.
Abstentions are rejected. Amendment 56: in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. 57 approved in favor, against, abstentions approved. 58 in favor, against, abstentions approved.
59 in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. 60 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
61 in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved. 62 in favor? Against.
Abstentions are approved. 63 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. 64 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are approved. 66 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
67 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. 68 in favor. Against.
Abstentions are approved. Compromise of Amendment Nine in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. Amendment 72.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved. 73 in favor? Against.
Abstentions approved; 74 in favor. Against. Abstentions approved; 75 in favor. Against. Abstentions approved; 76 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are approved. 77 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
78 in favor. Against abstentions, 79 in favor. Against abstentions, approved 80 in favor. Against or abstentions approved? 81 in favor?
Against? Are the abstentions approved? 82 in favor? Against? Are the abstentions approved?
83. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Approved.
84 in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Approved. 85 in favor?
Against. Abstentions are approved. 86 in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved.
And 87 in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved. Compromise Amendment 10. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions are approved. Amendment number 94. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions are approved. 95 in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved. 96 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are approved. 97 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
98 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. 99 in favor. Against.
Sorry. We have to vote on the amendment by amendment. I'm sorry. Amendment by amendment, says the Secretariat. Ninety-nine, ninety-nine, we were on, I think. Is that right?
Yes. Those in favor: 99; against: 0. Abstentions are approved. A 103 to 0 in favor. Against.
Abstentions are approved. A 105 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. A 106 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are approved. A 107 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
A 108 in favor. Against abstentions, approved with 111 in favor. Against: abstentions approved, 112 in favor. Against abstentions, 113 in favor. Against abstentions, 114 in favor.
Against abstentions, approved with 115 in favor. Against abstentions, approved with 116 in favor. Against abstentions approved. A 117 in favor. Against.
Abstentions are approved. A 118 in favor. Against. Abstentions approved, 119 in favor. Against abstentions, approved with 120 in favor.
Against abstentions approved, 122 in favor. Against. Abstentions approved, 124 in favor. Against. Abstentions approved, 127 in favor.
Against. Abstentions approved, 127 in favor. Against. Approved. A 128 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are approved. A 129 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
A 130 in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. A 131 in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Approved with 132 in favor, against, and abstentions.
A vote of 133 in favor, against abstentions, was approved. A 134 in favor, against abstentions, approved. We move to 311 in favor, against abstentions approved; 137 in favor, against abstentions approved; and 138 in favor. Against abstentions, approved with 139 in favor. Against abstentions, approved compromise amendment 11 in favor.
Against abstentions, approved. We move to 141 in favor. Against: abstentions approved, 142 in favor. Against. Abstentions approved; 143 in favor.
Against. Abstentions approved, 144 in favor. Against. Abstentions approved, 145 in full in favor. Against.
Abstentions are approved. A 146 in favor. Approved against abstentions. A 147 in favor. Against abstentions, approved.
A 148, again in favor, against. Abstentions ? Approved. À 149. In favor?
Against. Abstentions are approved. À 150. In favor? Against.
Abstentions are approved. À 151. In favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
À 152. In favor. Against. Are the abstentions approved? A 153.
À 153. In favor? Against? Are the abstentions approved? À 154.
In favor or against. Abstentions: 155 in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Block vote, which includes 156, 178, 179, and 180 votes in favor. Votes against.
Abstentions are approved. We move to 157. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved.
A 158 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. Compromise: 12 votes in favor. Against.
Abstentions are approved. A 161 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. A 162 in favor.
Against. Objections approved, 163 in favor. Against. Objections approved, 164 in favor. Against.
Obsentions approved, 165 in favor, against abstentions approved; 166 in favor, against abstentions approved; 167 in favor, against abstentions approved; 168 in favor, against abstentions approved; 169 in favor, against abstentions approved; 170 in favor, against abstentions approved; 171 in favor, against abstentions approved; 172 in favor, against abstentions approved; 173 in favor, against abstentions approved; 174 in favor, against abstentions approved; 175 in favor, against abstentions approved; 176 in favor, against approved; 177 in favor. Against abstentions, 182 were in favor. Against abstentions, 183 were in favor. Approved against abstentions. 184.
In favor. Again, against. Abstentions are approved. 185. In favor.
Against. Abstentions are approved. 186. In favor. Against.
Abstentions are approved. 187. In favor. Against. Abstentions approved: 188.
In favor. Against. Abstentions approved: 189. In favor. Against.
Abstentions are approved. À 190. In favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
Compromise: 13 votes in favor. Against abstentions approved, we move to 193 in favor. Against abstentions approved. 194 in favor, against, abstentions approved. A vote of 195 in favor, against abstentions, was approved. 316 in favor, against, abstentions rejected.
Compromise 14 in favor, against, abstentions approved. Amendment compromise amendment 15. In favor? Against. Abstentions are approved.
206 in favor, against, approved. 207 in favor, against, abstentions approved. 208 in favor, against, abstentions approved. 209 in favor, against, abstentions approved; 210 in favor, against, abstentions approved; 211 in favor, against, abstentions approved; 212 in favor, against, abstentions approved. Two to thirteen in favor, against abstentions approved.
Compromise Amendment 16 was approved in favor, against, with abstentions. 219. In favor. Against. Abstentions are approved.
220. In favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. 221.
In favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. 222. In favor: 223; against: abstentions approved.
In favor: 224; against: abstentions approved. In favor: against, abstentions, approved compromise amendment 17. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ?
Approved. 227 in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. Compromise amendment A18.
Votes in favor? Against. Abstentions are approved. Compromise 19 in favor or against? Abstentions are approved.
Sorry. No. It's the block vote now, together with 230, 231, and 232 votes in favor, against, and abstentions approved; 233 in favor, against, and abstentions approved; 234. In favor: 235; against: abstentions approved. In favor, against, abstentions.
2:36. Two hundred thirty-seven in favor, against abstentions approved. Two hundred thirty-eight in favor, against abstentions approved. Two hundred thirty-nine in favor, against, abstentions. Two hundred forty in favor, against, abstentions approved.
Two hundred forty-one in favor, against, abstentions approved. Two hundred forty-two in favor, against, abstentions 40; two hundred forty-three in favor, against, abstentions approved. Two hundred forty-four in favor, against abstentions, two hundred forty-four approved. 246 in favor, against approved; 247 approved; 248 approved; 249 in favor, against. Abstentions are approved.
Two to fifty in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Two hundred fifty-one approved. Two to fifty-two in favor, against. Abstentions are approved.
Two to fifty-three in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Two hundred fifty-four in favor, against abstentions approved. Two hundred fifty-five in favor, against abstentions, approved. Two hundred fifty-six in favor, against abstentions approved.
Two hundred fifty-seven in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Two to fifty-eight in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Two to fifty-nine in favor, against.
Abstentions are approved. Two hundred sixty approved. Two hundred sixty-one in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Two hundred sixty-two approved.
Two hundred sixty-three in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Two hundred sixty-four in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Two hundred sixty-six approved.
Two hundred sixty-seven in favor, against abstentions, approved. And this brings us to 269 in favor, against abstentions, and approved; 270 in favor, against abstentions, approved; 271 also approved. And this brings us to compromise one, and two, and compromise four in favor or against. Abstentions are approved. Two hundred seventy-five in favor, against.
Let's check. Two seventy-five. The vote is now open. The vote is closed. Approved.
276 in favor. Against. Let's check this. We'll open the vote. 276.
Votes are closed. Approved. And this brings us to 78. 278. Votes in favor.
Against. Approved. Okay. Let's check. 278.
Let's check the vote. The vote is closed. Approved. Two hundred eighty-one in favor. Against.
Abstentions, reject it. Compromise two in favor of against. Abstentions are approved. And 285 in favor, against. Abstentions are approved.
Compromise three in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. And then this brings us to 89. Votes in favor. Against.
Approved. Two eighty-nine. That is approved. And now 2-90 in favor. Against.
Oh, let's check 290, please. The vote is now open. We close the vote. Approved. And then compromise five, who's in favor?
Against. Abstentions. Approved. 293. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions are approved. Two ninety-four. Votes in favor. Against.
Abstentions are rejected. Two ninety-five. Votes in favor. Against. Abstentions are rejected.
And then, this brings us to the final vote. This is an electronic device. This is a roll call vote, please. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Approved. Vote: 19 in favor, 3 against, and 4 abstentions, which is something we need to reflect in the minutes. And then the vote on the mandate, and the inter-institutional negotiations. Roll call vote, please. The vote is open.
And now, we close this vote. We open the vote. Okay. Is everything okay? We close the vote.
Approved, 22 in favor. Three against. One abstention. Congratulations, rapporteur. And then we move to the next vote on this oceanic diplomacy for the competitiveness of the EU, rapporteur Ms. Sofko, and we shall be voting on this with compromise number two.
Votes in favor, against, abstentions approved. Amendment 57: votes in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. And now, compromise number three. Those in favor? Against abstentions, approved.
And then we move to 124, which I think is over here somewhere. 124. Votes in favor, please. Against. Let's check.
Let's check this vote quickly. À 124. The vote is now open. The vote is now closed. Approved.
And, therefore, let's go to compromise number four. Votes in favor. Against. Abstentions are approved. And then, let's move to 2:30.
02:30. Votes in favor. Against. Let's check. Yes.
We're going to check this quickly. The vote is open until 02:30. That is to amendment 230. Closed. Rejected.
And therefore, compromise number five is approved with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. And therefore, we now move to compromise six, in favor, against abstentions. Approved. And that brings us to compromise number 1. Who is in favor? Approved against abstentions.
And then, let's go to the final vote. The vote is now open. It's a roll-call vote. This is the final vote. We close this.
Approved. 18 in favor, 4 against, and 4 abstentions. Congratulations, Mrs. Sofko. This now brings us to the vote on the opinion of the interim report on the financial issue with which Mr. Ryson was involved. So let's move on to compromise two.
Votes in favor and against. Abstentions are approved. And now we move to compromise 3. Votes in favor and against. Abstentions are approved.
And comprises four. Votes in favor, against. Abstentions are approved. Four is approved, and this brings us to amendment 110. Are both in favor?
Against. Abstentions are approved. Compromise 5. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions are approved. And therefore, we now move to amendment A112. Votes in favor, against, abstentions. I think it's rejected, but we better check it. We think it is rejected.
So, vote, please. We now close this vote. Rejected. And therefore, go to compromise 6. In favor, against, abstentions: approved.
Compromise one: in favor, against, abstentions approved. And this brings us to the final vote. The vote is open. The vote is now closed. 21 in favor, 3 against, and 2 abstentions.
Congratulations, Mr. Ryerson. We'd now like to move on. We'd like to now move on to the next item on our agenda. This is the...
Speaker 1
Have Mr. Anatooglu. This is European fisheries and aquaculture statistics, and the tabling of amendments is on the 4th of March 2026 at 12:00. Mr. Anna Toglo is the rapporteur, and I'd like to open the debate on this particular draft report. Can I give the floor to the rapporteur, please? This is a draft report.
Speaker 3
Mister Anatoglou, you have 8 minutes. Thank you so much. This regulation does not just cover statistics as such. Can you hear the interpretation? Can I continue, or do you want me to wait?
Speaker 4
This regulation does not just refer to statistics as such, but to the basis on which we evaluate our common fisheries policy, the policies for the management of fisheries and maritime resources. These statistical data are based on 5 legislative acts. It's all divided with different methodologies, and this is an additional, supplementary difficulty. So, what we really need here is to have more clarity. This is something very urgent.
Speaker 3
The Green Deal and the agreement on sustainable fisheries call for reliable data. If not, we do not know whether our policies are working. So, this is all based on four fundamental pillars: quality and cohesion of data. The regulation needs to be tailored to align with what has been established by the FAO and the OECD. This is the way in which we can guarantee that European data can be compared at the international level with a common methodology and also reduce administrative burden.
Speaker 4
We don't want to turn all of this into more red tape, so we need to take advantage of existing sources of data that are being collected by other regulations, and they need to be applied appropriately. Proportionality and subsidiarity need to be taken into account so that all these data are truly necessary and that there is not a serious burden on small fishermen. And then we have the socio-economic dimension because these policies are not just environmental policies, but also social policies. We need to take into account the level of training, gender, age, fuel consumption, and costs to understand competitiveness, generational change, and the dynamism of the sector. We also need to look at the good legislative framework, with clear rules for exceptions, and ensure that there is trust and reliable data, especially in the isolated and small regions.
We also need better digital systems, such as REM. So, you and the use of cameras, and this would allow us to protect the data and also improve reliability. So we need statistical data that are reliable and comparable in fisheries for sustainable exploitation of marine resources, and that we have social cohesion at the same time. I'm interested in the opinion of my colleagues and your amendments. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Anatoglu. I'd now like to ask the shadows to take the floor. Three minutes each. Missus Lekalenik, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Speaker 5
You, madam. Thank you, rapporteur, for this report. It is going in the right direction, and it does take account of the general ideas behind the common fisheries policy. More information on the fisheries fleets and on agriculture statistics is needed for more efficient control. Also, technical, financial, and digital support for the islands and the ultra-peripheral regions.
This also calls for a reduction in the administrative burden on small fishery fishermen because this is a lot of work that is not really paid. And you have also spoken about the delegated acts. It's all fine, but we will be looking at the amendments because they may lead to an administrative or financial burden for member states. I'm thinking of amendment 26 when confidential data are passed on to Eurostat. It is also adding an aggregate, which is not confidential.
Speaker 11
We'll be tabling amendments on some points because we'd like to add statistics on the production of seaweed in Europe, as that is something that is growing in this sector. But don't add too much data to this. Don't call for too much data collection because that's an administrative burden. You don't want to call for data that is not really pertinent because we need to look at the objectives behind all of this. And let us avoid contradictions, potential contradictions between the data published by different platforms, because there are so many different platforms.
Speaker 6
We have Eurostat, Copernicus, and ModNet. So, of course, we'll work with you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, Mr.
Wittkitt.
Speaker 9
Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the floor, and thanks to Mr. A report for his report. From the side of renew, there are a number of elements that we see positively, in particular the extended coverage in article six, as well as our support for references to the European Ocean Pact. The report improves the text of the commission's proposal, as well as article four, exempting a member state from submitting data related to a specific variable only after a request from the member state has been made.
Speaker 7
In the current state, we would seek clarification on two of the amendments. First of all, it is not clear what mechanism would trigger defining thresholds for the identification of exempted variables, as their use is being cross-referenced in the report. At the same time, the empowerment for the adoption of the delegated act, which would define these thresholds, is deleted from the report. Secondly, you'd like to hear Mr. Aporter's intention regarding the provision of union funding, as it is unclear whether he foresees it only for the use of innovative methods and approaches, such as digital tools and remote sensors, or also for technical and logistical support, as amendments 12 and 42 seem to differ on this point. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8
Missus Miranda Path. Thank you, madam. Well, firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for his work and for the very open-minded way in which he has worked with us and has been very constructive. And this, I'm sure, can have an effect on the commission for the adjustment of the existing regulation. If we want a more competitive sector, if we want something that is more sustainable, we need a single legal framework for statistics to design our policies because sometimes there's too much red tape for our group.
Speaker 16
It is absolutely indispensable to have broader statistical collection on organic agriculture. We need high-quality statistics to base ourselves on consistent, precise, and updated statistical data. Because sometimes we don't seem to be getting them on time. So, we need to reduce the administrative burden for all those who work in this sector, such a dignified sector in aquaculture, the producer of seaweed, as Ms. Kalinec said, and the entire scientific sector as well. We protect the environment, and at the same time, we can make sure that the two sectors are viable to attract younger people and to keep people in the regions, especially those dependent on fisheries and facing demographic issues.
Speaker 8
So, we need realistic data. We need to get information on the age of the fishermen and the future generations involved in this activity. Also, the fisheries, the social sector, and the scientific sector need to be seen and perceived as a whole. So, we'll table amendments. We hope that the Parliament can proceed here. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Mrs. Zakaria. Thank you, colleagues. This draft regulation is a technical revision based on Article 238, but the legal framework is not neutral. Therefore, from our point of view, from the Common Fisheries Policy point of view. If we're still going to be collecting fisheries data, especially those related to processing, this is not being implemented in practice.
Speaker 15
We need a balance between economic activity on the one hand and sustainability on the other hand because these fisheries activities affect different species that are carbon collectors, such as certain types of seaweed, to protect those carbon absorbers. So, we need to do this by getting further information from our statistics. This does not really need to be turned into environmental regulation. What we want to know are the practices so that this system corresponds to the sustainability objectives of the EU. We need to know.
Speaker 1
We need to have information before we can deal with this, and we need to look at the economic and environmental impacts of fisheries. Thank you so much. I'd like to give the floor to the representative of the Commission, Mrs. Romanesco, from Eurostat. You have 5 minutes.
You have the floor.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving the commission the possibility to comment and to express its opinion on Mr. Arnatooglu's draft report. So the commission would like, again, to underline that its proposal is putting an accent on simplification and burden reduction, which is an important commission priority, and also that the current proposal intends to reuse as much as possible data which are already collected and available at the commission. And, of course, if this data meets the statistical quality standards. The commission appreciates careful work and amendments proposed aiming to improve the clarity and the transparency of the text. Concerning socioeconomic statistics, the commission would like to inform the honorable members of this committee that there is statistical legislation in force that deals with certain aspects of socioeconomic statistics.
Speaker 14
And I'm referring now to the European Labor Force Survey Regulation 2019, Regulation 1700, where data on employees in different economic activities are collected by age, gender, or education. And as well, I would like to mention here the regulation on energy statistics, which was last amended in 2024, and which is a very complete and detailed energy balance providing data on final energy consumption for the different economic activities. And as well, I would like to refer here to the annual economic reports, which are produced by the commission and which are based on the data collection framework council regulation. And they are covering as well economic data on income, costs, employment, and so on. So, another aspect that I would like to touch on here is the importance of our legal act for the ad hoc data collection.
Speaker 13
This article was introduced to increase the flexibility of this data collection because, practically, we consider that we are preparing this legal act for the next 20 to 25 years. So, we do not know eventually what is coming. So we consider that it would be good to have the flexibility and the right mechanism in case new data are requested. As well, to say that the commission is committed to reusing as many data as possible if they are available and if they meet the strict quality requirements of statistics. And that is why, in Article Seven, we have proposed this opening for the future where, if other databases become available for other domains, the Commission intends to reuse this data.
Speaker 12
So, a last point would be that the commission has very carefully aligned all its definitions with the current legislation in force. And mainly here, I'm talking about control regulation, and we consider this an important point. Thank you.
Tasgrathia?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And I'd like to give the floor back to Mr. Anna Taglo for 5 minutes to conclude this debate. Thank you very much. You have the floor. Thank you, Chair.
Speaker 3
Well, I've tried to group the different amendments, and we'll look at them in detail. Now one, two, three, four, five, six, and 11, those amendments have been said to strengthen the common fisheries policy and also the Convention for the Oceans. So, we're talking about the aim of the data collection here. It's not, if well, obviously; the aim needs to be clear. We can't have a good assessment if we don't have clear aims.
We need to make sure this data actually serves and supports the common fisheries policy. We're not politicizing things here. We just want to clarify the actual aim of the data collection. Now, there is a second group of amendments: 4A and 13. This is socioeconomic data.
Here, we have data that goes beyond the production, the age of those fishes in the sector, and the working conditions; it gives us a fuller view of the sector. We need to understand this social dimension, and that will allow us to really discuss the viability of the sector. With this, we don't want to expand the regulation. We just want to complete it. The third point, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 17, all look at the administrative burden.
This talks about data which already exists so that we're not asking for data twice. We need to make sure that any new obligations are actually necessary. We need to make sure that small operators in the sector are not overburdened. So, we need to have a smart approach to how we move forward with this. Now, amendments 14 to 23.
With these amendments, we want to make sure there is alignment in relation to terms and definitions. When we talk about production, we talk about a unit of production, for example. We need to make sure we are talking about the same thing. We need to have a common approach. If we don't have these common definitions, we won't have data that is comparable.
Now, one question in relation to amendment 27 and ad hoc data collection: that's not included anymore. When there is a crisis situation, we need to be swift and rapid, but we also need to have legal certainty. We can't; we need to be able to support fishers in the sectors as well. And then we also have 29, 13, and 31 amendments, which look at all units and the fact that these are taken into account. So why do we talk about 10,090%?
We can't leave the weakest, the most vulnerable sector, out of this now. 24, 25, 26, 28, and 33, this is in relation to confidentiality. We need to ensure that where there is a smaller number of companies, we are not providing detailed information that could reveal the identity of certain local businesses. This could have a negative impact on these operators. There is trade information, which is confidential.
Speaker 17
Now we'll come back to the different data sources at a later stage. Thank you.
Well,
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Anantoglu. And the deadline for amendments, as you said, will be Wednesday, March 4, at midday. So now I'd like to close this debate and thank everyone who has taken the floor. Now, if people agree, let's move on to the consideration of the recommendation for consent to conclusion on behalf of the Union of the Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe and the European Community 2025-2029. The report was attributed to the ECR Group and Ms. Nora Junko Garcia.
The deadline for amendments is 03/04/2026. I'd like to congratulate the rapporteur for excellent work on this report and for having come up with this agreement. This type of file shows how the Common Fisheries Policy is also an external policy. The fisheries partnership involves immigrants and diplomacy. There is also access to resources.
There is a geopolitical presence of the EU around the world. They're guaranteeing 6,500 tons annually. There's a migratory series with clear opportunities for our fleets above Spain, France, and Portugal. And this shows how we can combine development, sustainability, and competitiveness while strengthening our fleets. It's absolutely vital that this is voted on.
We'll continue to vote on the MFF, but this is something which is clearly supported. We need to make sure it is supported with sufficient funding. This is clear: we won't see legal access, support, and guarantees for the sector. So, with that brief introduction, I'd like to give the floor to Miss Junko Garcia for 8 minutes to speak about this extremely important file. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much, Chair.
Speaker 18
Now, as rapporteur for this report, I'd like to present the new fisheries partnership agreement between Saint Tomei Peninsula and the EU for the period 2025-2029. We have a technical and strategic document, which is not just a question of bureaucracy, but actually a key tool for food sovereignty in Europe and for the survival of our high-seas fleets. São Tomé is principally not just a small island state in the Gulf of Guinea. It's a key spot in the migratory routes for tuna. Over recent years, the majority of operators in the area have been European.
Speaker 19
That's over 60%, and that takes into account the distance from the EU. We are ensuring the legal certainty of an activity, which is a reality for our fisheries fleet. This protocol is not based on ideological aims but on the best available scientific data. The key points are in relation to capacity. There are 6,500 annual tons of tuna and migratory species.
Speaker 18
Now in the split, there are 26 seiners and also longliners. Now, this is a balance in relation to €825,000, which includes €325,000 for, or rather €500,000 of, strength in automation capacity. Now, this is something that we support because we need to be realistic. This is an important area for our fleet, and we're also ensuring that third-party or third-country fleets are not included. This agreement will guarantee food sovereignty in the EU and, obviously, is preventing bringing seafood from outside the EU.
It also provides legal certainty following the expiry of the previous agreement, and we need this legal certainty. Operators need this legal agreement to provide legal certainty. We are also allowed to fight against illegal fishing. Sectoral support is focused on strengthening the sovereignty of the Sao Tomei principal authorities over their own waters. And so, IEU fishing is something that undermines prices and leads to unfair competition.
Now, for future agreements, we need to be more ambitious when it comes to funding our sector. Generational renewal and sectoral support should be linked to the survival of coastal communities. We shouldn't just fund local management. We need to make sure that being efficient in the tuna sector is something attractive for youth in the EU. We need to listen to the RFMOs.
We need to improve data sharing with RFMOs. We need to make sure that science supports production. It shouldn't be a barrier. Now, it's also concerning that our fleet depends on other ports for landing and processing activities. We need to ensure that there is sufficient logistics support for our vessels.
This agreement defends the national interests of Spain, France, and Portugal, and strengthens the European presence in the Atlantic. It also ensures that resources are managed in the correct manner. So, I would ask the committee to provide consent to this agreement so that our fishers can continue to work or return to work with all the necessary guarantees. Thank you very much, ma'am. Hong Kong.
Speaker 21
I'd now like to open to the shutter reporters. Miss, Mr. Nachimento Cabral is on his way. So I'd now like to give the floor to Mr. Miyamo. Well, I can tell you what, Mister Nachimoto Cabralo. I'd like to say that I think this is a very important agreement because it allows tuna fishing by European vessels.
Speaker 20
It's particularly important for Spain. There are 22 Spanish vessels that benefit from this agreement, including Seine's and Mr. Longman. And then Mr. Nasmeen Scalarral arrived. Do you want me to hand over to him, and then I'll start again? Yeah.
Speaker 22
Mister Nusman Tagarral, as Shadow, you can begin. I'd like to apologize for being late to the chair. Obviously, the voting meant that I had to go and meet other commitments. So I'd like to thank the report on São Tomé and Príncipe; it is a historic alliance with Portugal. We have many common interests, and it's in relation to this EEZ that it is a strategic location for the EU.
Speaker 23
It's very important for our fleet and also for the São Tomé fleet. This agreement is absolutely vital. It will allow EU vessels to continue fishing in the EEZ of São Tomé. It also supports sustainable fisheries. It also maintains responsible exploitation of resources in the area and provides dignified working conditions in the fishery sector.
Speaker 22
As has already been highlighted, the protocol allows 6,500 tons of tuna and other highly migratory species to be caught in the area. So, this supports the European aims. There's obviously 15 tuna seiners: 11 for Spain, 11 for France, 26 Tunisian, and none surface longliners for the EU. And as we have seen in the past, we are financing access licenses, but we're also supporting the local development of the sector. We're trying to create infrastructure jobs, which should be absolutely vital for driving forward this sector at a local level and supporting the local sector and local blue economy.
We also have increased monitoring and oversight, including measures against IUU fishing. Finally, I'd also like to say that it supports the value chain in its entirety. It creates jobs. It creates professional training and also includes women and young people. As the shadow rapporteur for this report, I have to ensure, and we will defend clearly, that these resources will be used.
We also need to ensure the sustainability of these resources. This is the way the EU works. It's the best; the EU is the best partner for third countries. There is no one better than us. We respect the management of resources.
We're not predatory in this. Quite the opposite, and it was just something that's not seen with other global partners. That's why the EU's presence here is very important, and it should be recognized as a key partner for development in the region. We also see a strengthening of good governance of the oceans. Now, I will table a few amendments, but I don't expect any major problems.
I think this is a very balanced agreement, where we look at it very positively, and there's obviously interest here for the EU and Sartorama, and everything is taken into account. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Cabral and Mr. Myanmar. Thank you, Chair. I think Mr. Nachimoto Cabral said this very clearly.
Speaker 20
It's an important agreement for the EU. It's a win-win agreement, really. It's beneficial for the São Tomé principle as well. I was saying that it was particularly important for Spain. The 22 Spanish vessels, which are benefiting from this agreement, are seiners and seven longliners.
And I've also understood that in the previous protocol, fishing opportunities were fully utilized. Strengthening the strategic cooperation with third countries in the area of fisheries is extremely important for the EU vessels because it opens up new fishing grounds. And obviously, we're seeing a loss of fishing grounds, for example, in Senegal. Now, it's also important, when you look at it more broadly for the EU, that it adds to good governance of the oceans. And a final point: I think it was December 2024 when this protocol expired, but the new agreement was only signed in October 2025.
So, we've had a provisional application up until then. So, we have had this 9-month period where European vessels have not been able to fish in these waters. I think, for the future, it would be good to have these renewal discussions much earlier. Now, the information which I have available to me is that these discussions began in September 2024, three months before the end of the expiry of the previous agreement. So, this led to a situation where we had a period during which these fishing grounds were closed to European vessels, and there should be a lesson that we learn from new negotiations.
We should try to provide continuity. We don't want to undermine fishing. But I think if we can start these negotiations earlier, then we can try to conclude them earlier. So that would hopefully lead to a situation where we don't have fishing grounds being closed. Thank you very much.
Speaker 24
And I'd like to give the floor to the Commission, Miss Catherine Chapeau from DG Mare. You have the floor for 5 minutes. Please go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you to the speakers who have taken the floor.
Speaker 25
I don't have a huge amount of new information to add. I think the key points have been highlighted in this protocol. It's a modest size in financial terms, but nonetheless, it is of particular importance for the Atlantic fleet, a fleet which is based in Ivory Coast in Abidjan, but there are also long liners which operate from other ports as well. Sao Tome and Principe is a small island state and a small island developing state. They have some major economic challenges when it comes to the development of the sector.
Speaker 26
It's above all an artisanal fisheries fleet with low capacity. This protocol will allow them to, as it's been highlighted, improve monitoring oversight and also the development of coastal communities, with particular focus on activities which can provide income, above all, for women fishers. Now, despite low capacity, Sartamelle is nonetheless the only country in the region that sends catch data to the FAO. This is the result of this protocol. So, it's a clear example of how this kind of agreement can support sectors in the area to move towards the sustainable management of resources.
Speaker 25
The protocol also focuses on sustainable management, and it looks at the value chain for small pelagics as well. And this protocol will allow us to move forward with the fish for ACP project, which is something that has been very successful. It's come up with a five-year plan for the development of the sector, a five-year management plan, and further plans in this area. Now, we have made certain changes in relation to the fisheries opportunities. We've reduced the Seine slightly, but it is in line with needs.
And we've had a slight increase in opportunities for long lines because of something that was required by the Spanish longliner fleet. So, we tried to create a bit more space here. And this will obviously benefit the sector in Spain and Portugal. Now, in relation to the negotiations, note this reference to beginning earlier. Obviously, this was a closed period, but there is a network of fisheries agreements which allowed the fleet to go and work elsewhere.
Obviously, there were difficulties that you did highlight, which can affect some of our partners. For example, in Senegal, we would like to see this network further developed with access to more areas. Obviously, this is something we're fully aware of, and that's why we want to stop this period of having these closed periods. Now, that doesn't mean that the partners did not receive funding for this period. There's also a negative consequence, a negative impact for the partners as well. So, at times, they like to push us for higher financial contributions, and they use this as leverage during the period when the fishing grounds are closed.
So, that's what I can say about this agreement. So this agreement has been in effect since October. We're going to continue working on this program. They are involved in transparency in the fishing sectors, and they now publish on the Internet what access other fleets have to the EEZ. We have a joint committee meeting that was held a few weeks ago, and the report should have been sent to you. Hopefully, we'll be able to publish that information, which will be anonymized.
This shows how sectoral support is being used and in which sectors. It shows how this support can be used throughout the four years of the protocol. Now, we have seen a reduction in the actual time, so the agreement is for four years. And so, at the halfway point, we'll start negotiations for its renewal. So, that's what I can say.
But also local employment, with the possibility of using Saint Germain fishers and seamen. These are people who have been trained in Portugal. So, I would encourage our fleets to do that if they can, to look at this contribution and the contribution we'll make to local employment in the Sao Tomeo Peninsula. This will really provide benefits for the local community. Thank you very much.
Speaker 27
Thank you very much. Now, if there are any MEPs who would like to put questions to the commission. Mr. Desmonds, please. Thank you, Chair. Just two questions for the European Commission.
Speaker 22
Firstly, in relation to what you've just said, this is the training of the seafarers and the fishers, and something that we've seen in many of the agreements, the sustainable fisheries partnership agreements. What we've seen are the problems related to the contracting of seafarers. We see that there is often no interest in working on European vessels operating in these areas. Do you have any more information on this? Secondly, it's another question for the commission. Why is it that the level of use was only 73%?
So, there are still 25% of fishing opportunities that could have been allocated to the European fleet but were not. This is very important. Obviously, every euro invested by the European Union led to about 6.7 euros of added value for both parts, both sides of the agreement. But what difficulties were there? And then, why is it that we're not using 100% of the fishing opportunities as set out in the agreement?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Commission, you have the floor to respond to those two questions, please.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much. So, firstly, in relation to training, we have a list of fishers and seafarers who have been trained in São Tomé, which has been sent by the authorities. It contains a whole range of information. These people are available. We need to speak to local authorities so that employment can be conducted on European vessels.
This is done in line with international standards. The framework is there, but now it's for the vessels and the fleets to actually find whom to go and contract. I know longliners in the past have used the Saint Germain seafarers, and they're very happy with how that worked out. And there was a limit on longliners in relation to licenses. At times, operators didn't have the necessary licenses because there weren't enough licenses.
There are now nine licenses in the new protocol for a long line that's split between Spain and Portugal. Generally speaking, there is an exchange of discussion between the member states to look at how the licenses are allocated. I know this is something that happened in the past, and this is something that can continue to happen. The longliner fleet has used 100% of its fishing opportunities in the past. However, given the size of the vessels, the Dantois have the full tonnage.
And there are also the tuna seiners. Tuna seiners fish in these areas. Now, what we have seen over recent years is a drop in the number of catches, and this is because the migration routes have changed slightly. It's a bit too early to draw any conclusions on that in relation to this data, but we will see how the agreement is used in the future. We think that, obviously, this Ultomayo Presbyter region is a little bit further away than other regions, and Tunisian people generally have good catch levels.
And, hopefully, this will continue to be the case. There is always some variability in catches. Now, in relation to sailors, there are no limits at all. All sailors who have requested licenses can have the licenses, and the opportunities offered cover the requirements.
Well,
Speaker 28
Finally, I'd like to give the floor back to the rapporteur to conclude the debate. Miss Hunkar, any additional points that you'd like to make? Thank you very much, Chair. I'd just say, you know, it's a good agreement. I think everyone has taken the floor, and I think that's all I need to say.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, and good luck with this file. Deadline for amendments is March 4 at midday. So, this item is concluded. Thank you for your contribution. Thank you to the European Commission as well.
And thank you to the interpreters and the chair, and we'll begin at 2:30 this afternoon. Thank you very much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.