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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
PECH European Parliament
Follow its sittingsCristina Pita
So starting with the, I will start with some general information on the cross-border cooperation in the western waters. So, euh, there is, the governance of the shared fish resources in the western waters is very, euh, is very diverse and is multi-level. There are three main types of instruments that are used, euh, to, to support cross-border cooperation in the region. There are bilateral or multilateral fisheries agreements. These establish the legal and institutional framework for cooperation between states, covering access to waters, quota allocations, financial contributions and monitoring.
There are also multi-annual management plans adopted under the Common Fisheries Policy. Euh, and these, euh, set the long-term objectives and stock-specific harvest control rules. And, euh, finally, there are joint coordination mechanisms and technical measures that provide practical operational rules to align management actions between neighboring countries, so very good for the day-to-day management of the fishery. Despite this diversity in, euh, in types of instruments, euh, only a few fisheries have successfully combined the three elements into a single operational framework. And, euh, here is where the Iberian sardine and the Bay of Biscay come to play.
They are good examples of such full integration. Next, please. Next, please. Euh, I will provide some detail on these cases of best practice.
I will start with the bit of the example of the sardine. We started in the project in the study by looking at the implementation of the long-term management plan to try and understand the process, which is kind of a complex process. It's a bit of a full slide, I see, but I will pinpoint where you need to look at. So next. The current cross-border management framework is a result of crisis-driven processes.
So spanning decades. There are periods of low recruitment and near collapse of stocks ultimately resulted in Portugal and Spain adopting joint recovery plans. Next. Another interesting thing that needs to be taken into consideration is market tools, the MSC certification, which was implemented in 2010 for the Portuguese sardine, but especially the loss of the certification in 2012 and again in 2014 were very important moments that were catalysts for the first bilateral management plan between Portugal and Spain. Next please.
Also, another important thing to notice in that timeline is that institutional foundations were built gradually. It all started with joint acoustic surveys at the beginning of the entire process in '78, and then the creation and later expansion of the Sardine Monitoring Commission, which is in Portugal. And all these mechanisms created this transparency and stakeholder ownership in order to take, to be able to take difficult decisions. Next, please. And finally, I just marked with a red line, you can see where the multi-annual management plans appear in the timeline, which was established in 2012 and then subsequently updated in 2018 and 2021.
Next, please. And okay, another thing that we tried to also understand was, of course, what management measures are in place, but especially how the organizational framework, what is the organizational framework for providing the recommendations. And it's quite a complex organizational framework. So we created a schematics to try and simplify the organizational framework, maybe not so successfully because it's quite complex. So please, next.
So the current management system operates in a continuous loop. The ICES, national scientific institutions, and STECF provide advice.
Then this advice goes to the Sardine Monitoring Commission that you can see on top. And this Monitoring Commission is in Portugal and is comprised of scientists, industry, NGOs and administration. They review the advice. Then it goes to the Portuguese and the Spanish administration who jointly agree a multi-annual plan proposal. The proposal is submitted to the European Commission for approval and then implemented.
And this, it's evaluated annually, which results in a, in a feeding back, the results of the annual feeds back to the next cycle. And the plan is designed to be quite flexible. It's, the technical measures can be adjusted annually based on the assessments, the scientific assessments from ICES without reopening the entire agreement. So, it's readjusted every year. Next please.
Now the example of the Bay of Biscay anchovy. Again, we, we looked at the historical development of the long-term management plan. It's a bit different. It, next.
It evolved from a precautionary TAC, which was set independently from the scientific advice immediately in 1978 at the beginning of all the stock assessment. Immediately there was a bilateral agreement put in place in 1992, the Arcachon agreement, which was focused mostly on quota exchanges and fleet access to the resource. Then in 2005, there was a stock collapse, which resulted in a five-year fisheries closure moratorium on the anchovy. And this was a critical turning point again, so it was again an episode of collapse that is a critical turning point. During the moratorium, the Commission, STECF, the South Western Waters Advisory Council, and national scientists from Spain and France jointly developed the Bay of Biscay long-term management plan, which was implemented in 2010.
After the fishery reopened, after the moratorium, this bilateral coordination and was revised and a few other management plans and new agreements have been happening through time until today. Next please. Again, a bit of the organizational framework, which is somewhat different from the sardine, but with a lot of similarities as well. They're both small pelagics, so it's understandable. Next please.
The management system also operates on an annual cycle, and it's the same. There's the scientific surveys that feed into the ICES assessment. Then ICES provides advice to the Commission. STECF reviews the advice for economic and technical measures. And then what's a bit different is that Southwestern Waters Advisory Council provides stakeholder input, and the Commission drafts the proposal with the fishing opportunities, which is a bit different from the sardine.
Then the Council adopts these TACs. And when the TACs are set at EU level, then France and Spain coordinate implementation through the Getaria agreements, which is the current agreement in place. And that establishes fishing calendars, seasonal access rules, and also any negotiation of quotas between the two countries. Next, please. So, the key findings that we found, the key findings from these two cases of best practices.
They both demonstrate very clearly that in both fisheries, severe stock crises were the immediate triggers of formal cooperation.
The anchovy moratorium and also the sardine periods of stock decline and collapse forced the joint actions between the two neighboring countries. Also, bilateral agreements provide the operational backbone of cooperation. There is this complement the EU policy framework that establishes the practices and operational rules necessary for the day-to-day management, so that's what makes it easy to do the daily management of the fishery. There is a multi-level governance that completely underpins the fisheries management, which integrates both scientific advice through ICES and also national institutes, but also stakeholder advice through the advisory councils and also the sardine management committee in Portugal. And that informs the member states and also the European Commission.
It is also important, as the last point, to mention the market incentives, which like in this case was MSC certification, which is clearly a trigger of this cooperation, had a very important role in this bilateral collaboration between Portugal and Spain for the sardine fishery. Next, please.
And finally, I get to the end by providing five policy recommendations to improve future cross-border cooperation for fisheries management. These recommendations include: number one, strengthening and formalizing the mechanisms for cross-border cooperation. The these mechanisms remain uneven and insufficient institutionalized, sorry, bad word. For instance, the Getaria agreement, while it's operational, it remains largely an industry agreement rather than a formally embedded binding governance framework. So it would be there is the need to formalize cross-border cooperation within recognized legal frameworks aligned with common fisheries policy.
That would be a positive point. Number two, improving the coordination and integration of data. While the biological data is is harmonized at the ICES level and for a very long time, the socio-economic data remains fragmented and inconsistently collected across countries. Things are changing lately, but it's still it would be important to harmonize the social and the and the economic data collection and integrate this into the analysis and the management plans. It would enable a more informed decision making and more equitable as well.
Point number three: to establish a permanent platform for dialogue and information exchange. Both case studies underline the importance of continuous communication between the scientists, administration, and the fishing sector. So having a permanent cross-border platform, for instance, which would involve stakeholders and strengthen the role of the advisory councils and maybe even institutionalizing regular cross-border meetings, because that was one of the criticisms, that they were not very regular. This would improve the transparency and responsiveness of the management. Number four: enhancing stakeholder involvement is also very important.
The participation of the fishing sector has proven crucial in both the sardine and the anchovy cases. And the South Western Waters Advisory Council also played a pivotal role because all the fishermen identified it as providing the platform where the sector meets and engages in discussions and agreements.
So reinforcing the role of the advisory councils, increasing stakeholder involvement across all stages of management, and ensuring a balanced stakeholder representation across countries and sectors would also be crucial for improving legitimacy, compliance, and effectiveness and the effectiveness of the management measures. And finally, point number five: provide targeted and sustained financial support. The cross-border fisheries cooperation requires sustained financial resources to support scientific collaboration, but also governance structures and stakeholder participation. However, this money, the funding is not always available. And to have a dedicated long-term funding stream under the EU instruments such as EMFAF or whatever the instrument that will come to replace EMFAF could help secure the continuity of and effectiveness of the cooperative of these cooperative structures.
Next slide. And with this, I come to an end. Thank you very much for your attention.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Perfect. Thank you so much for your insightful presentation and for very well respecting the time. Thank you so much, Cristina Pita. Our next speaker is Mr. Matteo Chiarini, who will present the study on best practices from the Mediterranean Sea. So, Mr. Matteo Chiarini, the floor is yours.
Matteo Villa
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon everybody. First of all, thank you to giving me the opportunity to speak in front of us and show you the main outcomes of this study about cross-border cooperation in fishery management with a particular focus on the Mediterranean Sea. Next, please. So, in this presentation, I will first introduce briefly the background and the main aims of the study, then we'll end to a brief overview about the governance and fishery management context in the Mediterranean Sea. Then we'll end to the main conclusion of the study through a mapping exercise of all the cross-border cooperation, first among EU member states and then also for the GFCM context.
Then we'll talk about the best practice in cross-border cooperation. I will give you some flagship model regarding spatio-temporal management measures. And then we'll end in the conclusion and recommendation in the form of lesson learned. Next, please. So, the Mediterranean Sea is featured by a profound ecological diversity and has a socio-economic, a relevant socio-economic importance, as well as a complex, characterized by a complex geopolitical architecture.
So we have both EU countries and non-EU countries in this framework. Moreover, we have stock and essential fish habitat that are shared across countries, so there's a clear need of a high degree of cross-border synergies. So, generally to meet the sustainability requirements basically of the Common Fishery Policy, there's a strong evidence that there's a need of unilateral management is not sufficient to reach this target. Next, please. So, in that optic our study is placed.
So the aim is to investigate the fishery cooperation in the Mediterranean, focuses on the action taken by the General Fishery Commission for the Mediterranean Sea. And the main question of the study is: which are the processes and the governance context required to establish effective technical and conservation measures in the Mediterranean? So I'll give you here like a summary, the main three points that we will deal with.
So the first is the GFCM management process, which is a cycle, so-called data-to-advice-to-adoption cycle. Then we will analyze the critical factor for bilateral and multilateral cooperation among the GFCM members through a mapping exercise of all the available literature and documentation. And then we'll end with a comparative analysis of fisheries restricted area with a particular focus on the Adriatic Sea as a flagship model. Next please. So the governance and fisheries management in the Mediterranean have as key actors, firstly the GFCM, which acts as coordination body through all the effort of all the countries involved.
Then we have the member state representatives and the European Commission represented by DG MARE, which represents all EU member states. Then we have also non-governmental organization, stakeholders from private sector and experts all over the region. Next please.
The main management target in this specific context is the 2030 GFCM strategy, which basically promotes the establishment and enforcement of spatial and conservation measures grounded on the best available science. So basically to safeguard, it's targeting the safeguarding of the essential fish habitat, to ensure that vulnerable marine ecosystems are protected and actively restored. This is well in synergy with the European Green Deal and the biodiversity strategy for 2030, and also with the EU directives like the marine strategy framework and the marine spatial planning. Next please. So the key elements for the management in the base in the region are firstly this management GFCM management process, which is characterized by a cycle based on the best available science.
So we have a science-driven so-called data-to-advice-to-adoption, so starting from the data collection and analysis of the data, leading to an advice technically and scientifically accepted to land to a possible adoption through the institutional consultations. There's a diverse array of technical and conservation measures actually in place. For example, we have catch and effort limits, gear restrictions, selectivity measures, spatial and temporal closures.
But all these management measures are featured by a target which is to achieve the maximum sustainable yield, the so-called MSY, especially for the key commercial stock. And one of the main challenges that raising from this point is the need to harmonize all these technical standards, especially across all the sub-region involved. And I put here in the bottom of the slide an example of a management tool which is this standard form for the submission of the proposal for GFCM fish restricted area in the Med. And next please. Now we take a look about the results coming from the mapping of cross-border cooperation.
Focusing only on the cooperation among EU member states, we have as the best example the multi-annual management plan in the Western Med, which involve basically Spain, Italy, and France to establish a progressive reduction system for the fishing effort, which was supported scientifically and technically speaking by the STCF. Next please. Regarding the GFCM context, so the current actually in place multi-annual management plan, we see that we have a long list here of MAPs.
I'm not going to be deep in detail for each one, there are well described within the study. However, one common point is that all these MAPs are built up on a specific species or a group of species or a specific area. So they are, they are personalized. Next please. This is the second main result of the study, which is this comparative analysis of the fisheries restricted areas current in place in the Mediterranean.
We show, we choose the Adriatic Sea as case study because it has the highest level of seabed protection, so it's getting us a successful and operational example of cross-border cooperation, especially if we're talking about spatial and temporal management measures. These three areas are all characterized by a shared scientific evidence during the process to establish them and to propose them, but also they were characterized by a deep stakeholder involvement in most of the phases and a well-coordinated fishery and governance process.
These experiences basically are provide useful and potential replicable models for similar initiative across the Mediterranean. Next please. So this is the fourth example that I bring to you, which was the first established fisheries restricted area in the Adriatic Sea, the Jabuka-Pomo Pit. Is located more or less in the central Adriatic, as involve both Italy and Croatia. This is a case study is, I'm not gonna go very much in the detail here, but I just want to bring you one main point for each case study.
In that case, the one of the most important thing is that this Jabuka-Pomo Pit fisheries restricted area was one of the main tools to support the creation and the development of the standard form for fisheries restricted area proposal. So from the lesson learned from this case, it was possible to build up this standard form for the proposal of fisheries restricted area.
And the discussion in that case starting in 2009 but the bulk of the discussion happened between 2015 and 2017 when the fisheries restricted area was established then ratified by EU Commission and finally in 2021 the fisheries restricted area was made permanent. Next please. As another successful example of implementation of fisheries restricted area I'll bring to you the Barry Canyon fisheries restricted area which is located in the South Adriatic is a very small area. However the take home message here is that in that case the proposal for the FRA was featured by a deep discussion that started since the beginning of the proposal involving both national and private research institute, universities, fish organization and this allow in the same year to land with a strong proposal which was then submitted to the sub-regional bodies and then established in 2021. Next please.
The last case that I bring here is the Otranto channel FRA. In that specific case this case study is pretty much important because involve also non-EU countries.
In this case, we have Albania, Montenegro. And this is a pretty important case because as was for the Bari Canyon, the discussion that happened between 2018 and 2021 include both the organization, scientists and governmental bodies from both Italy and Croatia and Albania, sorry, and also Montenegro in to formalize a final proposal. So all the actors are involved has been involved since the start of the proposal drafting. This was then also supported by the GFCM framework building up a roadmap targeting specific species and it landed in 2024 to the final establishment of this huge fisheries restricted area in the Otranto Channel. Next please.
So as main conclusion and recommendation, the first lesson learned that I bring to you is the importance to first identify the ecological priority, so to map which are the essential fish habitat, which are the vulnerable marine ecosystem, the to map also the distribution of critical life stages, especially for the commercial stock. And this is one of the key point.
Then another important point that's raising from our study is the engagement of the stakeholder through the so-called co-design approach, which basically aims to identify and involve not only EU entities but also non-EU entities early in the process, so since the first stages of the process, especially in the drafting of the proposal. Another important point is the standardized assessment that helps us to harmonize these technical measures, so the importance to develop proposals that include ecological and socio-economic analysis allow how to maximize the conservation while minimizing the adaptation costs. Next, please. Then we have another very important lesson learned that are the need to strengthen the monitoring and enforcement to ensure a transparent compliance. We have a need to implement an adaptive management cycle, so through periodic reviews we can promptly react to changes in the stock status and in the fleet behaviors.
We have also a need to evaluate periodically, if possible, the governance performance in order to identify the main weaknesses, as example, the level of inclusivity, of coordination, acceptability of the measure and the governance itself. And then to ensure that there's a coherence in policy, especially for the marine spatial planning and the marine strategy framework directive. Thank you everyone for the attention and waiting for your question, Mr. Chair.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you so much, Mr. Matteo Gherardi. Indeed, it was very interesting your presentation and very good and practical examples of how cooperation can work. Lastly, I invite Mrs. Emma Björkvik to present the study on the Baltic Sea. So you also have 15 minutes. The floor is yours, please.
Emma Björkvik
Thank you so much, and I'm very happy to be here and to be able to present this work to you. Next, please. So, the aim of the study that I will present was to investigate cross-border cooperation in Baltic Sea fisheries management under Common Fisheries Policy. And I focused specifically on the cooperation between two organizations: the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum, BALTFISH, and the Baltic Sea Advisory Council, BSAC. And I'll talk a bit more about these later.
So what I did was that I analyzed how this cooperation functions in practice and what it delivers. Next, please. So, in what follows, I will first give you a short background, and then I will have two sections presenting the findings of the study: first, how BALTFISH and BSAC cooperate, and secondly, what are the outcomes of this cooperation. And then I will end with some conclusions and policy recommendations. Next, please.
So, the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea: we have a few commercially important species, and many of them have been in decline for several years now. And today, according to HELCOM, only four out of 15 stocks are considered to have good status. So this situation is a central task for fisheries management. Next, please. Which is a transboundary challenge, as you know, fish stocks move across nation borders.
And in the Baltic Sea, this challenge involves nine coastal states, eight of which are EU members. Next, please.
And here, cross-border cooperation is largely structured under the Common Fisheries Policy and specifically the framework of regionalization. And in this framework, EU member states are enabled to develop so-called joint recommendations, which are proposals on how to implement measures, which then can be adopted as legal acts, more specifically delegated or implementing acts. And when developing these joint recommendations, member states are obliged to consult so-called advisory councils. Next please. And in the Baltic Sea, member states work together in Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum, which includes fisheries directors from all Baltic Sea EU members.
And this organization was established in 2013. It has a rotating presidency and two main working levels. And this organization is relatively informal. It doesn't have a secretariat or website. Next please.
And then the advisory council in the Baltic Sea, BSAC, it has currently 38 members, where 60% represent the fishery industry and 40% other interest groups. And this organization was established in 2006 and has working principles outlined in the CFP. It has a general assembly, executive committee, management team and working groups.
So in comparison to BALTFISH, this is a much more formal organization with a permanent secretariat in Denmark and a frequently updated website. Next please. Okay, yes, so now we move into the findings and how BALTFISH and BSAC cooperate. So what I found was that they interact on a regular basis in many different forms. So for example, we have the BALTFISH forum seminars, which is a regional dialogue involving lots of different actors and stakeholders.
They attend each other's meetings and of course written correspondence is continuously ongoing. Next please. And this cooperation is fundamentally asymmetrical, rooted in these two organizations' institutional roles. So while BALTFISH retains the decision-making authority, BSAC operates in an advisory capacity. And this hierarchy may create some tensions and there are practices in place to deal with these tensions.
Next please. So overall, it seems that the cooperation is relatively well-established and functions well and that this cooperation has improved over time, as shown here for example in the BSAC annual report.
It stated that the collaboration between Baltfish and the BSAC goes in the right direction, for example. Next please. What I found was that these so-called virtual coffee meetings are particularly important in this cooperation. And these meetings are semi-informal meetings, as the name suggests, that were set up in 2022 to improve alignment. And they occur almost on a monthly basis.
And these meetings facilitate exchange of information, coordination of joint activities, and supports the transitioning between the various Baltfish presidencies. Overall, these meetings increase BSAC insight into Baltfish discussion and their decision-making. Next please. However, it is uncertain how Baltfish use BSAC input. There is limited information regarding Baltfish internal discussions.
There are no meeting protocols or agendas.
Also, BSAC struggle with too short consultation periods and with providing consensus-based advice. Next, please. Next, please. And together, this may hamper BSAC influence. For example, as noted by a Baltfish member in 2025, more unified recommendations on different stocks could help in elevating the impact of BSAC on Agrifish Council decision.
Next, please. Okay, so the second part of the findings, the outcomes. So I looked at outcomes in relation to four policy areas: fishing pressure, the landing obligation, harbour porpoise bycatch, and fishing in Natura 2000 sites. Next, please. So together, 14 delegated acts have been adopted on the basis of joint recommendations submitted by Baltfish, and these recommendations have also been developed in consultation with BSAC.
And acts concern exemptions from the landing obligation, fisheries selectivity improvements, mitigation of harbour porpoise bycatch, and fisheries restrictions in Natura 2000 sites. I did not find any acts concerning fishing pressure. Next, please. And the time for adopting these recommendations as delegated acts varies considerably. While some progress quickly, others take years.
And there are several reasons causing these delays, for example, lengthy scientific reviews, the geopolitical situation, and scientific uncertainties. Next please. And this assessment suggests that the cooperative efforts are incremental, meaning that they are limited in scale and ambition. So the annual exchanges on fishing pressure remain largely informational. In the context of the landing obligation, exemptions are prioritized over fisheries selectivity improvements, although fisheries selectivity improvements are seen as central for the implementation of this obligation.
And harbor porpoise bycatch mitigation and fisheries restrictions in these areas are shaped rather by external pressure or legal obligation than regional initiative stemming from the BALTFISH or BSAC. So opportunities for more proactive and transformative actions remain underexploited. Next please.
So in conclusion, Baltfish and the BSAC, the cooperation between these two is firmly established and functions relatively well at the procedural level. I see some uncertainty that remains regarding the role and influence of BSAC advice on Baltfish discussion and decisions. Also, cooperation appears to operate below its potential with Baltic Sea fish stocks continuing to decline and to be in a bad state. Next please. So based on this study, I present five recommendations of how to overcome some cooperative challenges.
First, to improve consultation timelines to strengthen the quality of BSAC advice. So short consultation deadlines repeatedly limit BSAC ability to provide and develop their advice. And maybe extended timelines won't guarantee agreement, but more predictable consultation would improve the quality of this input. Second, provide clearer guidance on how BSAC advice is used. So greater transparency regarding the treatment of stakeholder input in Baltfish would strengthen trust in the process.
One concrete option would be to establish some sort of website for BALTFISH where it's possible to publish reports from meetings and other information. Three, streamline the process from joint recommendations to delegated acts. So delays between the submission and adoption create uncertainty both for national agencies but also for fishers. Options to ensure that joint recommendations are sufficiently mature when submitted could be strengthening internal review procedures within BALTFISH and involving scientific experts at earlier stages. Four, sorry, increase the scope for cooperation beyond quota negotiations.
So it seems that annual quota negotiations appear absorb a large share of cooperation capacity. Maybe there are other alternatives, such as fixing the quota over longer period. Maybe that would free up some time for cooperation on other issues. And fine, five, use joint recommendations more strategically. So the existing legal framework provides opportunities for more proactive and transformative proposals.
And maybe here greater support from the European Commission and Parliament could help to realize these opportunities. Next please. I also identified a set of best practices for cross-border cooperation under regionalization that potentially could be transferred to other areas beyond the Baltic Sea. So first, maintain regular contact between Member State groups and Advisory Councils. So these virtual coffee meetings seems to ensure continuity and improved transparency, so that's a model that potentially could be used elsewhere.
Second, use standardized data and templates for preparing joint recommendations. So in the context of the landing obligations, standardization supports efficiency and policy alignment among Member States. Three, align joint recommendations closely with STECF assessment. So when recommendations are firmly grounded in science, they are more likely to be processed and adopted in a timely manner. Four, use European Commission signaling to stimulate regional action.
So this is what happened in the harbor porpoise case.
Here the European Commission served as an important catalyst for initiating regional cooperation. And five, leverage initiatives by individual or a small group of member states. In the light of fisheries restrictions in Natura 2000 sites, initiatives led by individual member states successfully triggered coordination and collaboration. And maybe such initiatives may over time inspire other member states to pursue similar actions. Okay, thank you so much, next please.
I look forward to your questions.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you so much. Je vais prendre le relais de Paulo do Nascimento Cabral et je vais maintenant donner la parole aux députés pour vos questions en commençant par ma liste, donc Francisco Millán Mon pour le PPE.
Francisco José Millán Mon
Gracias, presidenta. Y en primer lugar querría felicitar a los autores de los tres informes por sus trabajos y sus exposiciones. Tendremos mucho tiempo para leer estos textos tan profundos y sacar conclusiones. Yo tengo que adelantar que siendo español y gallego quiero dar la bienvenida en particular a doña Carmen Pita que viene de Vigo a esta comisión de pesca, aunque ya sé que es portuguesa, pero sé que trabaja en Vigo.
Yo soy pontevedrés y somos vecinos prácticamente. También al señor Querino y a la señora Bjørkvik. Yo creo que lo he pronunciado más o menos. Me voy a centrar en el estudio de buenas prácticas del Atlántico occidental porque ya he dicho que es lo que más, lo que mejor conozco. En el particular en el caso de la sardina, la sardina ibérica, un recurso muy importante en mi constituency.
Una sardina que estaba muy mal en el año 99, ya nos dijo, se acordó un primer cierre temporal creo por el bajo reclutamiento. Y luego pero la situación no mejoró. Y yo creo que llegó en el 2018, si recuerdo bien, el ICES, el ICES aconsejó el cierre total, ¿no?, de la pesquería. Pero dada la enorme importancia económica de esta pesquería para España y Portugal, los dos países acordaron este plan plurianual de gestión y recuperación en lugar del cierre. Y en fin, menos de una década después es un ejemplo de buena práctica.
Se ha conseguido la recuperación de la especie e incluso se consiguió la certificación MSC, con lo cual en fin pues es un éxito de la gestión pesquera. Tengo que decir que mucha gente no lo sabrá, pero también es cierto que hay algunas quejas.
Hay algunas quejas, por cierto, de los pescadores gallegos que dicen que la cuota de la sardina que les corresponde debiera ser mayor, etcétera. Pero bueno, espero que ese tipo de problemas se resuelva en la renegociación del plan a partir del 27, creo que se está hablando de este tema para que el reparto refleje mejor el aprovechamiento real de las flotas, ¿no? En fin, dicho esto, la conclusión es importante a mi juicio de este informe es que cuando la gestión pesquera es eficaz no implica necesariamente adoptar medidas drásticas como cierres de pesquerías. Yo creo que ese es el, es un poco la lección, que no siempre hay que tomar medidas drásticas, que las cosas no son blanco y negro, sino que como la propia naturaleza o el propio mar, hay distintas gamas de color, ¿no? Y que la gestión a largo plazo y la cooperación con los pescadores me parece el mejor camino para conseguir pesquerías sensibles, ¿no?
Insistía ahora en que el modelo nórdico, la necesidad de hablar con los stakeholders y los pescadores, pues sí, yo pienso lo mismo. Comparto plenamente su recomendación de establecer plataformas permanentes de diálogo, el intercambio de información, fortalecer, en fin, la participación del sector y de los stakeholders, reforzar el papel, también lo decían todos ustedes, de los consejos consultivos.
Y también me parece esencial tener en cuenta consideraciones económicas a la hora de que se tomen decisiones y no fijarse solo en cómo está el recurso, también el impacto de las medidas, ¿no? Ese es el equilibrio que todos queremos entre la dimensión económica, la social y la medioambiental, ¿no? Entonces querría preguntarles a los tres, pero también en primer lugar a la señora Pita, ¿cómo opina o qué opina de la posibilidad de dar mayor peso a las consideraciones socioeconómicas cuando se fijan los TAC y cuotas? Es una de las demandas que muchos hacemos. Yo creo que en la reforma de la política pesquera común debemos darle un mayor peso, una mayor presencia a que en las decisiones que se adopten, sobre todo en la fijación de TAC y cuotas, se tenga en cuenta también el impacto socioeconómico y no solo dejarse llevar por el estado del recurso, sino también pues tomar medidas graduales, cierta gradualidad, etcétera.
Me va faltando el tiempo. No quiero preguntar... Ah, bien, luego también querría preguntar a los tres. Luego hay una tensión entre la PCP, entre ustedes se han referido a la regionalización, pero al mismo tiempo hay que armonizar. Entonces hay esa tensión entre regionalización y armonización, ¿no?
Que eso yo creo que es un tema muy complejo en esta política regionalizadora, pero que al mismo tiempo no puede olvidar que estamos en una política que es común. Y termino, una referencia a este consejo o la Comisión General de Pesquería del Mediterráneo, que en fin, que tiene que gestionar un mundo muy complejo con países miembros, ocho, los otros que no son miembros. ¿Cómo creen ustedes que está funcionando? ¿Qué debería hacerse mejor?
Pero nada más y muchas gracias.
Gracias. Mrs. Eriksson from S&D.
Sofie Eriksson
Thank you, Chair, and thank you all of you for your presentations. This was very, very interesting to take part of. I think your presentations and the studies shows some contrast, that in the Western Waters and the Mediterranean, cooperation is organized around more concrete management objectives, pre-agreed rules and measures that can be monitored and adjusted. But in the Baltic, the institutional dialogue is established, but we can see that the ecological outcomes remain quite poor, to be, to put it politely. So I would like to ask a question to you.
Your report on the Baltic shows that the structures for cooperation are in place, but we can see, as I said, that the results ecologically remain limited.
What would you suggest that the EU and the Baltic member states should change so that the Baltfish delivers more long-term science-based recovery measures comparable to the harvest control rules used in the Western borders and the adapted spatial measures developed in the Mediterranean? And also a question, have you seen, what have you seen concerning to like an overall attitude to this cooperations among the member states in Baltfish? Is the BSAC, the cooperations with BSAC and the discussions in Baltfish, is it a priority for the member states? Have you seen anything on that? If you haven't, that's okay, but it's just an overall question.
And my third question is that your report also notes that Commission signaling has helped trigger regional action, but also that Baltfish often acts below the potential of the existing legal framework. Where member states fail to agree on sufficiently ambitious measure, should the Commission or Parliament intervene more actively, and if so, how? Thanks.
Thank you so much for all of our three guests and speakers. It's very interesting to listen and hear the different perspective from different regions. I'm going to start actually where you, Emma, finished.
Emma Ytterell
One of your last bullet was that the opportunities for proactivity has been unexploited and we could do more. And I think all of you three studies really show how regionalization has developed in practice and it's an opportunity to create sea basin specific issues. However, also mentioned by by you Emma is that the regional cooperation been much focus on tax and quota setting during negotiations and focusing also on stock declining and that that's sort of also there is a lack of proactivity and it can be done much more to develop regional cooperation. And we can make it more proactive from the member states to work together with neighboring member states. I think it's an important perspective and it's also a little bit like the million dollar question, the question is how to do it in practice.
So it's actually a question to to all three of us, but specifically since it's mentioned in your conclusions from the Baltic Sea, how could this be done more in practice?
Who should take the lead in such a work to try and try to come up with new new ideas and approaches for this more strategic and long-term approach or perspective? Should it be the Commission, the Member States, what pros and cons is it? And whoever whoever it is in the end, what would be needed in order for them to take on that proactive role? How do we go from reactivity into proactivity for more involvement in the management and a little bit more forward-leading approach to it? So it actually goes for all three sea basins because you are looking at it as it is now, but how can we take it from where it is now and evolve it into what's needed to be a bit more activity.
Thank you.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you very much and thank you very much to all three speakers for I think very interesting presentations. Um, I think on the Bay of Biscay anchovy and the Iberian sardines, is that right? Yeah, okay, so that was that was actually new to me and to see kind of the development how these stocks were close to collapse and then you managed to turn things around. And I think that's very impressive.
One thing that I noted was that harvest control rules are on stock biomass, so BMSY I guess, or whatever level you're at. And this distinguished those fisheries from the fisheries in the Baltic Sea where we're just going for FMSY and not having the really trajectory towards recovery of biomass. So that's interesting. And just for my knowledge, I want to know if these fisheries are going to fishmeal or fish oil or only for human consumption. You can answer that later.
So and also what type of safeguards do you have in these long-term management plans? Because there's also a discussion here in the Parliament and on the Council wants to remove the 5% rule from the northern multi-annual plans. And the 5% rule is based on risk. So if there's a 5% risk of stock collapse, then you should just, you should never be there. So but if you get there, you should stop fishing.
Does that also apply to the Western Med or else do you have any other type of safeguards when it's like the alarm bells are going?
Because you have already the experience of stock collapse and that I guess you don't want to repeat that. On the Mediterranean again, so very interesting examples from the Adriatic. We have some coastal states there who don't belong to the EU: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. Do they kind of cooperate on these restrictive fisheries restricted areas, and has that cooperation been easy, or if you can say a little bit more about that? And then finally going to the Baltic, and I'm going to speak Swedish, so if you want to put your headphones on, also colleague from EPP maybe.
Jo, det är ju intressant att se att det här samarbetet på pappret och i teorin fungerar väldigt bra, men om man ser på resultatet så kan man ju inte säga att det här har gått bra. Tre av vad har vi, elva bestånd som är i dag i något sådär bra skick och inte de andra.
Så att det stämmer ju verkligen till eftertanke och att vi behöver göra någonting nytt. Och här har ju vi kollegor i parlamentet förhandlat fram ett förslag på en flerårig förvaltningsplan som verkligen har säkerhetsmarginaler, tar ekosystemansatsen, försiktighetsansatsen och också stoppar eller pausar industritrålningen tills bestånden har återhämtat sig. Och frågan är ju kanske till dig om du ser att det finns någon krisinsikt i de här två institutionerna så att man verkligen tar de här råden på allvar och gör någonting nytt. För att business as usual har lett oss till den här situationen med bestånd efter bestånd som har kollapsat. Västra strömmingen, östra torsken, västra torsken, vi kan liksom inte fortsätta så här längre.
Och de här rekommendationerna ifrån BSAC och Baltfish, de handlar ju ingen handlar ju om att minska fisketrycket utan det handlar bara om andra saker. Och det är ju också dåligt betyg får man säga till den här förvaltningsformen. Så att jag precis som Emma Wiesner så måste jag fråga liksom var ska initiativet komma ifrån för att vi ska vända den här onda spiralen? Duger det med bara nån slags konsensus mellan kuststaterna och intressenterna eller behöver vi faktiskt lagstiftare som tar ansvar?
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you. Si vous me le permettez, quelques remarques à mon tour. Merci pour ces présentations très intéressantes. Vous nous savez évidemment très favorables à ces coopérations qui sont cohérentes avec le travail que nous faisons sur le MSP, le MSFD et sur ce que nous souhaitons, c'est-à-dire des plans de gestion pluriannuels par bassin, par espace maritime. J'aurais deux questions sur les données statistiques et sur l'observation et une question sur le financement.
Sur les données statistiques, vous savez que nous travaillons actuellement un règlement relatif aux statistiques européennes. Donc ma question, je vous la pose mais également à la Commission, est-ce qu'on intègre cette approche qui nous est proposée par ces rapports pour harmoniser en fait les statistiques ? Ça c'est la première chose qu'on a besoin de données pour prendre les bonnes décisions. Sur l'observation, là également, est-ce qu'il y a une harmonisation de la façon dont travaillent les scientifiques dans nos différents États membres pour évaluer notamment l'impact des, on va dire, impacts climatiques du changement climatique sur la ressource halieutique ? Là aussi, je pense qu'il faut pour qu'on travaille bien ensemble qu'il y ait une bonne coopération, que nous harmonisions notre manière d'observer.
Et ma troisième question, pardon d'être vénal, mais nous posons souvent ici des questions sur les financements des politiques publiques, il s'agit de coopération. Est-ce que ces actions qui sont menées par les différents États membres bénéficient des fonds Interreg en plus du FEAMPA ?
Je vous remercie. Et je vais me permettre peut-être de passer la parole à la DG MARE. Pardon si j'écorche le nom, Monsieur Eoin Mac Aoidh. Et puis ensuite, je vous redonnerai la parole peut-être pour répondre aux questions de mes collègues. Je vous remercie.
Eoin Mac Aoidh
Thank you very much. My name is Eoin Mac Aoidh, I'm the deputy head of unit in unit D3 responsible for the coordination of the fisheries policy. Thank you for this very interesting work and thank you to the three speakers who explained their work. As a general remark, actually, before we start, I'd like to underline the importance of these studies as well as others on related topics which provide essential input for policy implementation and development. They feed very well into our work and my colleagues in the regional units have been analyzing them in detail.
Indeed, these are the kind of studies that we take into account when we come with items such as the evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy regulation which was published at the end of April.
The underlying assessment of the three studies that we've seen today is that regional cooperation is absolutely essential for sustainable management of shared fisheries resources and for the effective protection of marine habitats. Regionalization is a very important element in the CFP. It's incorporated in the principles of good governance in Article 3 of the CFP regulation. The stakeholders, the main actors in regionalization play a very important role and that has been highlighted in the studies. Regional member states covering the different sea basins and the advisory councils.
These are the ones that are involved in drafting the conservation measures based on the best available scientific information and their regional perspective with the assessment of scientific of the scientific community. And the Commission services have a very close and continuous cooperation with all of these stakeholders involved. A couple of words on each of the studies. For the Baltic Sea, we welcome the increased and structured cooperation between the advisory council and the relevant member states group which is the Baltfish. We did notice the areas that were identified for improvement and we would encourage the stakeholders involved to consider these improvements and and how they cooperate together.
For the Western Waters, the two successful cases that were presented, we welcome these initiatives. However, from the Commission's point of view, it's important that they remain in line with our CFP and that key objectives such as MSY are fulfilled. For the Mediterranean in particular, the Commission has invested significant effort and resources in regional cooperation in RFMOs, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, in the Mediterranean, in particular the GFCM. And since the work on the MedFish4Ever Ministerial Declaration in 2017, the fisheries governance framework in the Mediterranean was fundamentally reshaped based on the main building blocks of the CFP. This includes science-driven decision-making process, multiannual management plans based on MSY, the fisheries restricted areas that we saw, the FRAs, strong monitoring and surveillance measures, and international joint inspection schemes.
So we're pleased to see these positive results highlighted in the report.
And they support our aim to ensure a level playing field across the Mediterranean to combat IUU activities and to harmonize rules. I would also, to finish on the studies, I would also like to remark on the call to ensure policy coherence in view of the competition for maritime space. This is an important exercise and a topic that is raised in the Ocean Pact and will certainly feature in the upcoming Ocean Act in 2027. Concerning the question to the Commission about European statistics, I'm afraid I can't comment on that in detail. It's our colleagues in Eurostat that lead on this.
So from a general perspective, all I can comment is that we're very much on board with harmonization of data and increasing the knowledge base and collection of data in a way that can be shared and harmonized across sea basins. Thank you.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you. Je vais maintenant donner la parole et dans l'ordre à Madame Pita, Monsieur Guarini et Madame Fofack pour à peu près quatre minutes si ça vous va. Thank you.
Cristina Pita
Hello, so I will start.
So I probably will start by the comment by Mr. Millán about the Iberian sardine. We did, we did actually also interview 12 key people during the, during the work because we wanted to have the opinion also of these key stakeholders from academia to, to people involved in the assessment, also the industry, the several fishing associations involved in the fisheries. And it is a problem that did come up that the Galician fishers actually, as you did mention, that the issue of higher quota and unfairness somehow of the quota distribution. But what we can very clearly see looking at the two cases is that the country that traditionally had the biggest interest in the fishery seems to have the higher quota. So in the case of the sardine, Portugal has 67% of the quota.
But if you go to the case of the Bay of Biscay anchovy, then Spain has 90% of the quota. And, and the same problem was pointed to me from the French fishermen of wanting more quota for anchovy. It follows the, the quota distribution follows the principle of relative stability.
And if you ask my personal opinion about it, bearing in mind that I am biased, I'm a social scientist, I do think we should have more into consideration social and economic importance and the social benefits of the fishery on that. But as it stands, we follow the principle of relative stability. Maybe it should be something to consider changing or trying to change, but it passes through these houses here very much. Then, then, then, I'm going to go for the issue of data, because I thought it was very interesting and I did mention that quite a lot in my report, in the study, sorry. What we can see is very clearly that the biological assessments are completely harmonized at the ICES level.
They've been done for a very long time, which replies to two questions more or less at the same time. The way the stock assessments are done is decided at the ICES level. Where I find that it is missing is a bit the social and economic data does remain a bit fragmented in these policies, especially social. Quite normal, I mean, I'm part of the STECF social data.
It's a very new thing. The first report just came out now at the end of June, and it seems to have received quite a big interest by a lot of entities. So social and economic data doesn't tend to be considered so much, and of course I do think it should be considered much more when taking these decisions, if nothing else to be a bit more equitable and do a better distribution of things. And then I wanted to, sorry, I have taken, oh, your question, Mrs. Lavine, sorry, about the human consumption. It goes all to human consumption, both fresh or to the canning industry.
So but it's quite a valuable, it's quite valuable fisheries, both the anchovy and the sardine, all for human consumption. I hope I, I'm not sure, I think I covered more or less all the things. I'm sorry if I forgot something, please remind me.
Matteo Villa
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So I will reply first to Mr. Millán, which asked in general how we can, which are the main messages that we can take from the GFCM framework. And I think that the study that I presented is a very good example for this, especially because, okay, we have an harmonized, we have a lot of synergy between our strategy, the EU one and the GFCM one, so most of the, there are many common points. But one thing that I highlight in the study, which is missing, is for example the standardization, the harmonization of the protocol. In the GFCM, to establish in particular fisheries restricted area, there's a standard form which was developed starting from the lesson learned, especially the Jabuka Pomo Pit's one, that supported a lot this type of proposal for the fisheries restricted area. And this is for me a very important lesson that we can take from the GFCM context, so build up knowledge from the experience of every bodies and entities involved in the, in every management measure developed.
And to reply to Mrs. Eriksson, which asked me about the how we can increase the the proactivity especially and the reactivity. I think that also in this case I put a point in my conclusion which is the need of an adaptive management cycle, which is pretty related to this, so to be able to promptly react to changing in the stock features, biological one, but also in the fleet behaviors which adapt a lot when management measure are taking place. It's important that these management are reviewed periodically, so we can know which are the main point especially talking about indicators, for example biological one or also socioeconomic one. So by periodically renewing reviewing this indicator we are able to improve our proactivity. And I think that it was done for example for the Jabuka Pomo Pit, which was become permanent after a review of the socioeconomic indicators.
And to reply to Mr. Jovin, thank you very much for your view and I think that you asked about what we can learn from the dialogue dialogue especially with non-EU countries like Albania, Montenegro.
And I think that one of the main things that we learn from the Otranto Channel case study is the importance to involve all the stakeholders, which are not only governmental bodies, but also scientists, universities, stakeholders from both EU and non-EU countries since the start of the drafting of the proposal. So we can get a general overview which are the main difficulties, which are the main challenges, and then we can start to draft the proposal of the FRA following also the data-to-advice-to-adoption cycle, so based on the best scientific advice and all the things that we already present. I think that this was one of the main lessons learned, especially if all the stakeholders are involved since the start, they are feel like involved, so they accept basically what we are doing in terms of management. I think that was the reason why the Otranto Channel FRA is implemented is because of this strong cooperation since the start. And I think that I reply to everyone, but if you want, I can.
Emma Björkvik
Yes, thank you.
And thank you for for very good and also challenging questions. So if I start with the the questions regarding attitude and crisis awareness within Baltfish and BSAC. So I mainly I based my study on meeting reports and material available text material online, but I also made a few informal interviews with members of Baltfish and BSAC. And from those interviews, I would say that some think that or many of them think that the cooperation is working rather well and also highlighting that it has improved over time, that it was much more problems and challenges in the past. And also some said that that this is the best we can achieve.
So this is this is structures that we have and they are working right now. And with crisis, I I didn't really come across it, but I I also noted that some BSAC members were really happy about this proposal that you put forward here.
So I think, especially in BSAC, that there are views or opinions that things need to change considering the ecological situation in the Baltic Sea, absolutely. But then on the other hand, the BALTFISH members, they seem to be, I mean, with the quota system, it seems like they, this is the structure we have, it's working, we have this, you know, we know how to do it now. So it's easy to continue with it. But of course, and this is a boring answer, it would be really interesting to do some more investigations here, to interview BALTFISH members. What do they actually think about, yeah, the cooperation?
And also, of course, BALTFISH members from different countries and so on, to see where some tensions might lie and where some synergies may occur. Okay, and then on the questions about, okay, but what to do, how to improve this cooperation, how to actually achieve some ecological impact, who should push the member state? Is it the member states that should actually take these actions forward or is it other EU bodies? I think it's very challenging to answer that.
And what is the role of the Parliament and Commission here? But maybe one thing, thing to say is maybe, I mean, is it possible in one way or another to make the member states keen on cooperating? Is it possible to make inaction somewhat costly? How could we do that so it's, so they prefer to cooperate rather than not cooperate? And I'm not sure how, actually.
And what could Baltfish do to change? As I said, it seems like this, this quota negotiations are relatively well established. But here, I mean, maybe it's possible to again ask them. And also I'm thinking here, is there this shared view of the main ecological challenges in the Baltic Sea among the Baltfish members?
Maybe that's something to identify. And maybe if this shared view doesn't exist, well maybe then it isn't the member states themselves that should... Maybe then it's impossible for them to take further action that support fish stocks. And one person that I interviewed also emphasized that we have available legislation in place, which is really good. But it's also important that we make sure that it is followed.
That in many cases maybe the legislation isn't really followed. So that's also something for the European Parliament and Commission maybe. Okay, I'll end there. Thank you.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you so much. If there's no additional question, I think nous sommes arrivés à la fin de cet atelier. Je tiens à vous remercier et remercier également le département thématique de la DG CASP pour son soutien à la réalisation de ces études, ainsi que les experts, donc vous-mêmes, pour être venus échanger avec nous. Et je clos cet atelier maintenant. Merci et nous reprenons à 16 heures en continu.
Merci beaucoup. Thank you so much.
Bien, je vous propose de continuer sur le plan de gestion des pêcheries de petits pélagiques dans la mer Adriatique. Nous aurons un échange de vues avec des représentants de la Commission européenne. Je vais donc sans plus tarder donner la parole à Milena Mihaylova, chef d'unité DG MARE, pour qu'elle fasse une présentation sur ce sujet. Vous avez la parole.
Milena Mihailova
Thank you very much. I would like to start today's presentation by highlighting that for the EU and the GFCM, which is the regional fisheries management organization dedicated to the conservation, sustainable use, and development of marine resources and aquaculture in the Med and the Black Sea, the Adriatic Sea represents an example of best fisheries management practices, an example to be replicated in all other subregions in the Mediterranean. This has also been illustrated in the study on cross-border cooperation in the Mediterranean Sea commissioned by this committee. The success is built on the close scientific cooperation between our member states and third countries in the GFCM, a cooperation that translates into strong management advice and good management decisions. Throughout the years, the Adriatic management plans have produced very good results and the enlargement process has brought Albania and Montenegro even closer to the EU fisheries rules, facilitating regional cooperation, and I heard a question on this just in the last discussion.
The best example is the Otranto fisheries restricted area, the first joint EU non-EU FRA in the Mediterranean Sea. The Adriatic small pelagic plan is a new generation plan adopted by the GFCM in 2021, based on a thorough prior scientific assessment and agreed by all concerned riparian countries. It is implemented on a yearly basis with the GFCM establishing fishing opportunities. We use latest data, scientific data, to ensure a timely management of these short-lived stocks like anchovy and sardine. To support further the sustainable exploitation of small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea, the GFCM conducted in 2024 a management strategy evaluation, so-called MSE, to inform decisions for the long-term phase of the management plan.
The MSE identified a sustainable harvest control rule to set the annual catch limits aligned with long-term objectives of the multiannual management plan.
Based on these results, the GFCM adopted a long-term fishing regime establishing, for the first time, catch limits for species in 2025. Here again, the Adriatic Sea has been setting a precedent in terms of good practices, as this MSE marked the first-ever implementation of fisheries management based on harvest control rules that were direct output of an MSE process in the GFCM and provided a basis for setting the species' annual catch limits. For anchovy, the scientific advice shows a level of fishing mortality close to MSY, but biomass has further decreased in the last year, leading to a request for an adjustment of the catch limit, and realized catches in 2025 were showing an uptake of around 80% of the quota. As regards sardine, owing to the reduction in biomass, the stock has fallen below the biomass limit reference point.
This is an unfortunate deterioration of the state of the stock and signals, like the incapacity of fishers to catch more than 55% of the 2025 quota, that there is an issue with this stock. What has driven the sardine collapse is a fisheries mortality that has not reduced enough in recent years, and possibly some environmental drivers. The GFCM MAP has clear provisions for setting the catch limits for these stocks dependent on the biomass and fishing mortality levels. I want to stress the socioeconomic considerations, however, are also included in the MAP, and we have, for example, the provision on limitations on the interannual catch variations. However, due to the current status of sardine, the stock requires other fisheries management efforts to stabilize its fishing mortality.
Currently work is ongoing at the level of the GFCM to establish the appropriate measures for the implementation of the multiannual management plan, and in October, at the annual session, the GFCM will adopt a decision for 2027.
The Commission works very closely with the concerned member states to ensure the GFCM adopts the most appropriate measures and properly balances environmental and socio-economic considerations as well as taking into account fishers' efforts already employed to protect the state of the stocks in the Adriatic. Thank you.
Stephen Nikola Bartulica
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll speak in Croatian. Drago mi je da se ova rasprava danas održava. Godinama ribarski sektor na Jadranu provodi sve mjere koje su zahtijevali Europska komisija, GFCM i nacionalne administracije. Smanjili smo ribolovni napor i flotu, prihvatili lovostaje, prostorna i tehnička ograničenja, smanjenje ribolovnih dana te stroge kontrole.
Sve je prihvaćeno. Sve to uz velike financijske i operativne gubitke, vjerujući da će mjere dovesti do oporavka stokova. Danas je stok srdele ispod biološke referentne točke Blim.
To znači da se moramo zapitati postoje li ozbiljni nedostaci u dosadašnjem sustavu upravljanja. Neprihvaćamo da se odgovornost ponovno prebacuje isključivo na sektor, na ribare, bez preispitivanja kvalitete znanstvenih procjena, korištenih modela, pravovremenosti upravljačkih odluka, utjecaja okolišnih promjena i stvarne učinkovitosti dosadašnjih mjera. Istodobno očuvanje ribljih resursa ne može se promatrati odvojeno od očuvanja ribarske flote i prerađivačke industrije. Svako veće smanjenje ribolovnih mogućnosti ugrožava tvornice prerade, opskrbni lanac i tisuće radnih mjesta, posebno na otocima, u obalnim sredinama gdje često nema gospodarske alternative. To je svakako u raznim mjestima u Hrvatskoj slučaj.
Također ribolov male plave ribe u Jadranu izrazito ovisi o vremenskim uvjetima. Tijekom jeseni i zime loše vrijeme često onemogućuje izlazak na more, zbog čega ribari ne mogu iskoristiti dodijeljene kvote. Neiskorištena kvota zato ne može biti dokaz da ribe nema. Buduće mjere moraju uzeti u obzir i rastući utjecaj prirodnih predatora te invazivnih vrsta na stokove male plave ribe. Zato tražimo sljedeće: neovisnu znanstvenu reviziju procjene stanja stokova i metodologije, uključivanje predstavnika sektora u donošenje upravljačkih mjera.
Dakle sektor mora kao glavni stakeholder u ovome o čemu raspravljamo biti uključen. Izradu kriznog socioekonomskog plana za očuvanje flote i prerađivačke industrije. Uspostavu stvarnog sustava zajedničkog upravljanja između znanosti, administracije i sektora. Procjenu gospodarskih i socijalnih posljedica prije donošenja bilo kojih novih ograničenja. Pravednu raspodjelu odgovornosti između institucija i sektora.
Financijske mehanizme za očuvanje zaposlenosti tijekom razdoblja oporavka stokova. Kolegice i kolege, smatram da buduće upravljanje mora počivati na četiri načela. Prvo, očuvanje ribarske flote mora biti jednako važan cilj kao očuvanje ribljih resursa. Drugo, smanjenje ribolovnih mogućnosti za srdelu ne smije biti veće od 25% jer bi veće smanjenje ugrozilo opstanak flote, prerade i obalnih zajednica. Treće, potrebno je uvesti ciljane prostorno-vremenske zabrane ribolova na mrijestilištima i rastilištima.
I četvrto, potrebno je uvesti dodatni jesenski eho-monitoring kako bi znanstvene procjene bile pouzdanije.
Na kraju želim jasno poručiti. Daljnje jednostrane restrikcije mogu dovesti do gašenja dijela flote, kolapsa prerađivačke industrije, gubitka radnih mjesta i nestanka tradicionalnih ribarskih zajednica na istočnoj obali Jadrana. Jednom izgubljen sektor neće biti moguće obnoviti, čak ni ako se biomasa u budućnosti oporavi. Hvala lijepa.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Merci. Si vous me le permettez, une remarque également sur les recommandations qui comprennent en fait des limites de capture annuelles, un plafond de capacité de la flotte, des restrictions de la capacité de pêche, un examen scientifique régulier et des dérogations limitées. Quand j'écoute notre collègue, et c'est une question que je pose à la Commission, pensez-vous qu'il pourrait y avoir des obstacles ou des freins à la mise en œuvre de ces recommandations? Et est-il prévu des clauses de revoyure en cas d'impact socio-économique significatif, comme on a pu l'observer ailleurs?
Je vous remercie de vos réponses et je vous donne tout de suite la parole. Merci.
Milena Mihailova
Thank you very much. As regards the intervention by the honorable member Bartulica, as I mentioned in my intervention in the beginning, I really believe that science in the Adriatic is of exemplary nature. We have top European scientists taking part in the scientific work of the GFCM. As regards stakeholders' participation in this work and more broadly in the advisory process of the GFCM, I would also like to recall that the GFCM's subregional committees, working groups are open to experts' participation, including from the sector and their representatives, and we have, for example, MEDAC following all the work of the GFCM.
As regards what you mentioned, that there could be other factors leading to the fishing mortality of these stocks, I believe you would agree with me that irrespective of the possible uncertainties of the reasons for the state of these stocks, the reality is that there are fewer sardines, they grow slower or die faster, and lower catch limits would be the response that accommodates a lower productivity of the stock or an increased natural mortality. As regards envisaging review clauses, so as I mentioned, this is an annual exercise, so each year the GFCM reviews the state of the stocks and takes decisions appropriate in accordance with science, but we don't just take science into consideration. As I mentioned, we also take socioeconomic considerations in building the rules for the respective year. So, for example, in addition to effort, we also take into account other type of measures that the sector, the Member States take in order to protect the state of the stock.
So our driving principle as EU in proposing fishing opportunities in GFCM context is always driven by science and socioeconomic considerations. Thank you.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you. That's okay. Merci beaucoup. Et bien nous allons poursuivre nos travaux et nous allons évoquer le poisson globe à joues argentées qui envahit la mer Égée et l'impact sur la pêche et les écosystèmes marins. Donc je souhaite la bienvenue au représentant de la Commission, Emmanuel Berck, qui est chef d'unité à la DG MARE.
Et sans plus tarder, Monsieur Berck, vous avez la parole. Merci.
Emmanuel Berck
Merci Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés. Je voudrais tout d'abord vous rassurer d'une façon générale sur le fait que la Commission prend très au sérieux la question des espèces invasives et a pleinement conscience du problème qui est lié à leur prolifération. Également consciente de l'impact négatif que cela entraîne aussi bien en termes écologiques qu'en termes économiques. On assiste à un phénomène qui prend de l'ampleur depuis quelques années et on estime actuellement à environ 2000 espèces marines invasives le nombre de ces espèces présentes dans les eaux de l'Union européenne, avec une concentration en Méditerranée et notamment en Méditerranée orientale. C'est une situation qui a pour origine à la fois le commerce maritime, évidemment l'existence des détroits, Gibraltar, Suez, qui peut amener ces espèces à rentrer dans le bassin méditerranéen, également l'aquaculture qui est une source également de prolifération de ces espèces.
Et évidemment tout cela est renforcé par le changement climatique et la hausse de la température des eaux notamment en Méditerranée orientale. Alors le pacte pour l'océan adopté par la Commission en 2025 l'an dernier a reconnu l'importance du problème et a annoncé une initiative politique qui viendrait compléter l'arsenal législatif actuellement existant, actuellement en vigueur. Il faut également bien sûr rappeler la résolution du Parlement européen présentée par Monsieur Rodriguez à laquelle la Commission a apporté une réponse détaillée.
Du côté des États membres ces derniers se sont également penchés sur cette question et le sujet a été à l'ordre du jour d'une réunion entre États membres une réunion des directeurs généraux de la pêche qui a eu lieu à Chypre au mois d'avril dernier. Et les discussions lors de cette réunion ont permis d'identifier les défis liés aux espèces invasives défis sur la pêche sur l'aquaculture sur la biodiversité et sur les économies côtières. Cette réunion a également permis de faire un certain nombre de constats et de discuter de solutions possibles notamment le besoin la nécessité reconnue par tous d'améliorer les connaissances d'améliorer la collecte de données sur ces espèces invasives et de promouvoir les efforts de gestion sachant que très souvent une éradication n'est pas possible mais qu'il vaut mieux alors se tourner vers un mélange de mesures qui peut inclure qui peuvent inclure des efforts de gestion de ces espèces et également des mesures visant à la commercialisation de ces espèces lorsque cela lorsque cela est possible. Pour ce qui est des initiatives en cours au niveau européen j'aimerais en mentionner un certain nombre.
Tout d'abord au niveau de la recherche, le programme Horizon Europe a un projet qui permet de soutenir la détection des espèces invasives et également la prévention de leur développement. On a également mis en place au niveau du Centre commun de recherche, le JRC, le réseau EASIN qui est principalement une base de données permettant de recenser l'ensemble de ces espèces invasives. Également des discussions ont lieu dans le cadre du de la collecte des données, de ce qu'on appelle le DCF, donc le Data Collection Framework, où le sujet est régulièrement mis à l'ordre du jour des réunions entre coordinateurs nationaux et où les États membres sont invités également à inclure les espèces invasives dans leurs plans de travail. Évidemment au niveau de la CGPM, c'est un sujet qui fait également partie des priorités. On peut citer tout d'abord la mise en place d'un observatoire régional des espèces invasives qui a son siège en Turquie et qui permet de recueillir des bonnes pratiques et de contribuer à leur diffusion et à l'échange de ces bonnes pratiques.
On peut également mentionner un certain nombre de projets pilotes visant à étudier le phénomène et également à aider les pêcheurs à se préparer et là aussi comme je le disais à envisager des mesures de commercialisation des espèces invasives.
On a par exemple des succès assez assez marquants qui concernent le crabe bleu que certains pays méditerranéens ont réussi à transformer en opportunité assez rentable au bénéfice des pêcheurs. Également bien évidemment le Fonds européen pour la pêche et l'aquaculture, le fonds FEAMPA, qui peut être utilisé par les États membres pour soutenir la recherche, le suivi, la surveillance, également les mesures de compensation pour les pêcheurs affectés par ces espèces invasives. Mais également ce fonds prévoit ou permet la rémunération même des pêcheurs pour une activité qui vise à capturer ces espèces invasives et à contribuer à leur élimination. Alors pour ce qui est du poisson-ballon à bandes argentées de façon plus spécifique, donc il faut savoir que là c'est une espèce invasive assez assez particulière puisque c'est un poisson qui contient un certain nombre de toxines, des tétrodotoxines qui peuvent être fatales en cas de consommation. Alors les États membres peuvent déjà utiliser ce fonds pour mener à bien des actions qui visent cette espèce et qui visent à aider les pêcheurs à s'en débarrasser.
J'aimerais rappeler qu'il a existé un projet pilote à Chypre qui s'est développé il y a une quinzaine d'années et qui a permis d'identifier un certain nombre de bonnes pratiques.
En tout cas, ce projet pilote a permis d'atténuer un petit peu, de diminuer la pression que représente ce poisson-ballon sur les pêcheries locales. C'est un projet pilote qui a aussi permis d'appréhender un petit peu au niveau scientifique le comportement de cette espèce, son impact sur d'autres espèces de poissons, mais aussi sur les engins de pêche et l'activité des pêcheurs. Et actuellement, nous avons en Grèce un appel à projets qui vise également à rémunérer les pêcheurs en cas de capture de ces poissons-ballons, pour autant qu'ils sont récupérés par les pêcheurs et qu'ils soient ensuite débarqués, incinérés, puisque c'est le meilleur moyen de s'en débarrasser. Donc ils sont véritablement éliminés. Et là, c'est un programme en Grèce qui est assez récent et qui a un budget d'un million et demi d'euros qui vont être affectés donc à rémunérer d'une certaine façon les pêcheurs pour cette activité de nettoyage des eaux, et ça concerne essentiellement la mer Égée et la Crète.
Ce qui est intéressant c'est qu'en Grèce nous avons également dans le cadre du fonds européen précédent, l'EMFF, un certain nombre de projets pilotes s'intéressant à cette espèce de poisson-ballon qui pour le coup se sont intéressés à l'aspect innovation et comment on pouvait éventuellement valoriser cette espèce même si c'est une espèce toxique. Il y a eu des exemples assez encourageants d'utilisation de ce poisson-ballon pour la fabrication de produits pharmaceutiques, également pour la fabrication de produits destinés à l'alimentation animale dans l'aquaculture ou la pisciculture. Donc il y a évidemment la destruction qui est je dirais l'outil principal pour s'en débarrasser mais il y a aussi du côté de la valorisation de cette espèce un certain nombre de projets qui sont en cours et qui probablement pourront également donner des résultats. Donc voilà un panorama un petit peu de ce que fait la Commission d'une façon générale sur les espèces invasives et des possibilités qui existent pour cette espèce particulière de poisson-ballon. Merci beaucoup.
Speaker 21
Merci beaucoup. Je vais donner la parole à Monsieur Beleris pour le PPE.
Fredis Beleris
Ευχαριστώ Πρόεδρε. Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, η ανεξέλεγκτη εξάπλωση του λαγοκέφαλου, κυρίως στο Αιγαίο, πλέον προκαλεί σημαντικές επιπτώσεις στην αλιεία και στην τοπική οικονομία.
Οι επαγγελματίες αλιείς βρίσκονται καθημερινά αντιμέτωποι με ένα πρόβλημα που διαρκώς επιδεινώνεται, απειλώντας άμεσα τη βιωσιμότητα της μικρής και μεσαίας παράκτιας αλιείας. Όπως οι ίδιοι επισημαίνουν, ο λαγοκέφαλος καταστρέφει τα αλιευτικά εργαλεία, κατασπαράζει τα αλιεύματα πριν αυτά ανασυρθούν, καταστρέφει τους πληθυσμούς άλλων ειδών και επιτίθεται ακόμη και στα εργαλεία των ιχθυοκαλλιεργειών και των οστρακοκαλλιεργειών. Η ελληνική κυβέρνηση έχει προχωρήσει το τελευταίο διάστημα στην πιλοτική εφαρμογή προγράμματος επιδοτούμενης αλιείας του λαγοκέφαλου στην Κρήτη και το Νότιο Αιγαίο με οικονομικό κίνητρο. Επίσης, ανακοίνωσε τη συνεργασία της με το Ελληνικό Κέντρο Θαλασσίων Ερευνών και τις περιφέρειες για την επιστημονική παρακολούθηση, τη συλλογή και την ασφαλή διαχείριση των αλιευμάτων λαγοκεφάλων, ενώ παράλληλα προχωρά στην υλοποίηση ενός ολοκληρωμένου εθνικού σχεδίου αντιμετώπισης. Ωστόσο, ο λαγοκέφαλος εξαπλώνεται σε ολόκληρη τη Μεσόγειο και η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να μείνει αμέτοχη.
Απαιτείται η δημιουργία στοχευμένης χρηματοδότησης με παραπάνω χρήματα για τα ξενικά είδη και την αντιμετώπισή τους.
Η χρηματοδότηση πρέπει να αφορά την αποζημίωση των αλιέων για τα κατεστραμμένα αλιευτικά εργαλεία, την ενίσχυση επιστημονικής έρευνας, την ανταλλαγή τεχνογνωσίας για την αλίευση και την αγορά νέων ειδικών εργαλείων, αλλά και την εντατικοποίηση των ερευνών για την αξιοποίηση του λαγοκέφαλου. Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, θα ήθελα να κλείσω υπενθυμίζοντας το ψήφισμα του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου της 10ης Μαρτίου του 2026, όπου με συντριπτική πλειοψηφία παρουσιάσαμε τις θέσεις μας για τα ξενικά είδη. Πρέπει λοιπόν η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή χωρίς άλλη καθυστέρηση να αναθεωρήσει την κοινή αλιευτική πολιτική και να αυξήσει τα χρήματα στην αλιεία για το νέο ΠΔΠ 2028-2034 προς όφελος των ψαράδων μας.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Merci, je vais maintenant donner la parole à Monsieur Arnaoutoglou pour S&D.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ κυρία Πρόεδρε. Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, η Μεσόγειος αλλάζει με ταχύτατους ρυθμούς και πιο γρήγορα από κάθε άλλη ευρωπαϊκή θαλάσσια λεκάνη. Η κλιματική αλλαγή και η εξάπλωση των ξενικών ειδών δεν αποτελούν πλέον μόνο περιβαλλοντική πρόκληση, απειλούν την αλιεία, τη βιοποικιλότητα, την τοπική οικονομία και την ασφάλεια των πολιτών.
Ο λαγοκέφαλος είναι ίσως το πιο χαρακτηριστικό παράδειγμα, όπως ακούσαμε και από την Επιτροπή, από την Κύπρο έως και την Ελλάδα μέχρι και την Αδριατική, η εξάπλωσή του αποδεικνύει ότι πρόκειται για ένα ευρωπαϊκό πρόβλημα της Μεσογείου και όχι για μια τοπική ιδιαιτερότητα. Μάλιστα ακούσαμε και είδαμε και στον τύπο ότι έχει φτάσει και έχει περάσει και το Γιβραλτάρ, έχει φτάσει μέχρι και τον Ατλαντικό αυτό το είδος. Οι αλιείς βλέπουν καθημερινά τα δίχτυα τους να καταστρέφονται στην Ελλάδα, τα αλιεύματά τους να χάνονται και το εισόδημά τους να συρρικνώνεται. Στη Κρήτη επιστημονική έρευνα κατέγραψε μέση οικονομική ζημιά που ξεπερνά τα 6.300 ευρώ ανά αλιευτικό σκάφος κάθε χρόνο, ποσό που αντιστοιχεί σχεδόν στο ένα τρίτο του ετήσιου... Dear colleague, can you slow down a bit because of the... thank you so much.
Στη Κρήτη επιστημονική έρευνα κατέγραψε μέση οικονομική ζημιά που ξεπερνά τα 6.300 ευρώ ανά αλιευτικό σκάφος κάθε χρόνο, ποσό που αντιστοιχεί σχεδόν στο ένα τρίτο του ετήσιου εισοδήματος ενός παράκτιου αλιέα. Ταυτόχρονα πρόκειται για ένα ιδιαίτερα τοξικό είδος με εξαιρετικά ισχυρό δάγκωμα και απαιτείται συνεχής ενημέρωση αλιέων αλλά και πολιτών και επισκεπτών, τουριστών δηλαδή, ώστε να αποφεύγονται ατυχήματα και κυρίως περιστατικά κατανάλωσης του ψαριού που μπορεί να αποβούν μοιραία.
Η Κύπρος όντως εφαρμόζει ήδη πρόγραμμα οικονομικής ενίσχυσης για την συλλογή λαγοκεφάλων και πρόσφατα η Ελλάδα έκανε ένα πρώτο θετικό βήμα. Όμως, το ελληνικό πρόγραμμα περιορίζεται μόνο στην Κρήτη και στο Νότιο Αιγαίο και ο λαγοκέφαλος δεν γνωρίζει διοικητικά όρια. Δεν μπορεί δύο αλιείς που υφίστανται την ίδια ζημιά να αντιμετωπίζονται διαφορετικά επειδή δραστηριοποιούνται σε διαφορετική περιφέρεια. Και γι' αυτό ζητώ τέσσερις συγκεκριμένες ευρωπαϊκές πρωτοβουλίες. Πρώτον, την επέκταση των προγραμμάτων στοχευμένης αλίευσης σε όλες τις περιοχές όπου τεκμηριώνεται η παρουσία του λαγοκέφαλου.
Δεύτερον, αποζημιώσεις για τα κατεστραμμένα αλιευτικά εργαλεία και την αποδεδειγμένη απώλεια εισοδήματος των αλιέων. Τρίτον, τη δημιουργία ενός ευρωπαϊκού ταμείου ανθεκτικότητας της αλιείας που θα ενεργοποιείται άμεσα για ζημιές από ξενικά είδη, θαλάσσιους καύσωνες και άλλες συνέπειες της κλιματικής αλλαγής. Και τέταρτον, τη χρηματοδότηση ευρωπαϊκής έρευνας για την ασφαλή αξιοποίηση της βιομάζας του λαγοκέφαλου σε φαρμακευτικές, βιοτεχνολογικές και άλλες καινοτόμες εφαρμογές. Δεν αρκεί να πληρώνουμε για την καταστροφή του.
Πρέπει να επενδύσουμε ώστε ένα περιβαλλοντικό πρόβλημα να μετατραπεί, όπου είναι επιστημονικά εφικτό, σε ευκαιρία για καινοτομία και ανάπτυξη. Και αφού η απειλή, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, είναι κοινή για όλη τη Μεσόγειο, όπως ακούσατε, τότε κοινή πρέπει να είναι και η ευρωπαϊκή απάντηση. Και ήθελα να ρωτήσω και στην Επιτροπή, αναφέρατε το νέο ελληνικό πρόγραμμα ύψους 1,5 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ, με ποια συγκεκριμένα κριτήρια θα αξιολογηθεί η αποτελεσματικότητά του και αν υπάρχει πρόβλεψη να επεκταθεί σε μεγαλύτερη κλίμακα αν αποδώσει. Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Merci, je rajouterai quelques remarques à celles de mes collègues et j'élargirai le propos en fait à toutes les espèces invasives. Nous avons régulièrement ici en commission de la pêche des débats sur ces sujets-là qui ne concernent pas seulement le poisson-globe et vous avez d'ailleurs vous-même évoqué le crabe bleu de Méditerranée. Vous l'avez dit, il y a des fonds européens qui permettent de lutter contre les espèces invasives. Il y a des programmes Horizon sur le sujet et vous avez parlé évidemment du FEAMPA.
Le FEAMPA qui permet des mesures de compensation, éventuellement des rémunérations pour les captures, c'est tout ce que vous venez d'évoquer. Alors aujourd'hui nous avons des financements, ils sont connus, répertoriés, mais demain comment cela va-t-il se passer puisque vous savez que nous sommes en train de travailler sur le futur cadre financier pluriannuel, que le FEAMPA dans son acception d'aujourd'hui quelque part disparaît puisque les fonds seront fléchés vers les États membres. Or on voit bien que sur ces espèces invasives la question elle concerne des bassins complets avec différents États membres qui sont concernés. Donc comment ça va se passer demain pour lutter contre ces phénomènes-là ? Et vous évoquiez également dans vos propos liminaires le pacte pour les océans.
Quel est le rapport que nous faisons entre le pacte pour les océans et éventuellement des mesures concernant les espèces invasives ?
Je n'ai pas trop compris en fait où dans le cadre du pacte des océans on travaillera sur cette question qui est très importante, on l'a vu à travers les remarques de mes collègues pour les différents États membres. Donc ma question c'est vraiment comment demain on va continuer de dédier des fonds de façon collective sur ces phénomènes d'espèces invasives ? Merci beaucoup.
Emmanuel Berck
Merci beaucoup. Bon, il est évidemment difficile pour la Commission de dire aujourd'hui à quoi vont ressembler les fonds demain. Mais en tout cas, évidemment, nous prenons bonne note des propositions et des observations qui ont été faites sur le besoin d'avoir une action de nature transnationale finalement et de garantir dans les financements futurs des financements qui pourront permettre d'aborder ce sujet des espèces invasives, et notamment au niveau de la recherche. Au niveau de la recherche, on a le programme Horizon Europe qui existe et qui prévoit des enveloppes assez importantes justement pour essayer de combler les lacunes que nous avons en termes d'analyse du phénomène et de connaissance. Donc ça c'est un outil qui est déjà utilisable et d'ailleurs est utilisé.
La même chose vaut pour le FEAMPA que vous avez cité, madame, c'est un cadre existant. Donc là, la possibilité existe.
En revanche, ce sont aux États membres évidemment de fixer les modalités d'utilisation de ce fonds sur ce genre de problématique. Alors pour le cas de la Grèce que nous avons regardé en détail, il y a effectivement une méthodologie qui a été développée pour l'indemnisation des pêcheurs. C'est une méthodologie qui a été développée et adoptée par les autorités grecques. Et vous le savez que dans les comités de gestion, la Commission a plutôt un rôle d'observateur. Donc la Commission a participé à ces réunions, mais l'initiative et la prise de décision revient et est revenue aux autorités grecques puisque c'est de leur ressort.
Il en est de même pour le niveau de rémunération, donc qui fait partie de cette méthodologie développée au niveau national. Pour ce qui est du pacte pour l'océan, je l'ai cité parce que le texte qui a été présenté l'an passé par la Commission prévoit une initiative de nature politique pour aborder ce sujet des espèces invasives.
Donc c'est une annonce qui a été faite et c'est pour ça que nous avons actuellement toute une série de réflexions internes pour voir comment répondre à cette annonce et concrétiser finalement ce qui a été indiqué dans le pacte pour l'océan l'an passé. Merci.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Merci, s'il n'y a pas d'autres remarques, je me permets de vous remercier et nous suivrons ça de très près. Merci beaucoup. Donc je clos ce sujet et la prochaine séquence est à huis clos. Donc j'invite ceux qui ne sont pas censés rester à sortir tout simplement s'ils veulent bien, ce qui va me permettre d'inviter Paolo à reprendre sa place.
1 mois, 6 mois, 2 ans ? Parce que ici on évoque souvent la question de la pêche illégale. On sait qu'on contrôle nos propres pêcheurs, les pêcheurs européens. On a eu tout à l'heure un débat sur le système CATCH dont on espère qu'il va améliorer les choses. Et il faut savoir que ces pays, pour certains d'entre eux, nous exportent ce qu'ils ont pêché de façon illégale.
Et donc moi j'avoue que depuis que vous nous faites ces présentations, et vraiment je vous en remercie, et c'est normal qu'elles soient à huis clos, je ne comprends pas pourquoi on ne sanctionne toujours pas. Je trouve que le système des cartons jaunes, cartons rouges est intéressant, mais à condition derrière d'appliquer les sanctions. Ça c'est le premier sujet. Et le deuxième, mais je pense que ce n'est peut-être pas de votre ressort...
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.