Committee on Fisheries Ordinary meeting
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
PECH European Parliament
Ihren Sitzungen folgenGriffin Carpenter
This often comes in the form of quota or catch limits. So you as a fisher have one hundred tons of mackerel that you can fish next year, or in fishing effort. So you, a fisher, can go out to sea for one hundred fishing days next year. A key part of this is that they're quantified and they're limited. So if it was a million tons of mackerel quota or three hundred and sixty-five days at sea, we wouldn't be here talking about it.
You could go out and fish, they would have no meaning, they'd have no power. It's their scarcity that gives fishing opportunities value. For some fishers, this is so valuable, the fishing opportunities, that it might be their most valuable asset, more than the fishing vessel itself, but the fishing opportunities that they hold. This also gives value to policymakers. By allocating fishing opportunities, you have the power to shape fisheries.
It's a policy lever. If next year all of the boats that were blue got twice as much quota as all the boats that were red, well you can bet there'd be more boats that were blue you'd see at sea. And so the Commission, the member states can use fishing opportunities to achieve their objectives that they want to in fisheries. And the point is that some criteria has to be used. There's no way to do allocation without using criteria.
So sometimes we see things as default. Allocating fishing opportunities they were the year before and the year before based on historical allocation.
That's still a policy choice. There are still winners and losers from that system. Even an open pool where all fishers can access jointly some fishing opportunities, 500 tons shared amongst the fleet. Again, that's equal access. That's a decision and that has winners and losers.
Next slide. Those decisions, which criteria to use, is largely up to member states. But there is some EU policy on this. So Article 16 of the Common Fisheries Policy says that it's member states' prerogative, it's their discretion, but they must inform the Commission of the method that they use. Article 17 gives a bit more guidance.
Some of the text is on the screen. It says member states when allocating their fishing opportunities shall use transparent and objective criteria of environmental, social and economic nature. And then more statements. They may use the examples on the screen, impact on the environment for example, historical compliance, and they shall endeavor to provide incentives for selective fishing. So there is policy here guiding member states on how to allocate fishing opportunities, but we can see with these modal verbs, the shall, the may, shall endeavor, it's pretty weak legislation.
It's not directing exactly how allocation should be done, which criteria, what weighting should they be applied, how should they be applied. And so allocation remains a member state competence and this was confirmed last year when the Commission produced their vademecum. Next slide. So has Article 17 and the other EU legislation achieved anything in this space? Has it changed the way that member states allocate fishing opportunities?
To answer this question in the study, I assembled a new dataset. So looking at the 22 coastal member states that have fishing opportunities that they allocate, looking at their responses to Commission surveys and questionnaires, looking at their primary and secondary legislation and contacting the member state fishing administrations, I compiled a library of 237 criteria that are used. So what's an example of a criteria? One of these points might be Denmark uses 17 meters as a criteria to access a quota pool for the small-scale fleet. That's one criteria.
And so there's 237 examples like that. Sometimes a member state will use the same criteria, the length of a fishing vessel, historical track records, multiple times for different fisheries, for the large and the small, pelagics and demersals. So there's 141 distinct criteria member state combinations. Next slide, please. This is a snapshot of what that library looks like.
So the library records how the criteria is defined, where it comes from, is it from the EU TAC, is it a quota reserve, is it quota that comes from swaps between member states or third countries, how it's applied and how it's measured. So how exactly is historical track record measured? Is it over a five-year basis or three years? Which three years did you pick? So that's all recorded in the library.
I hope this is a resource that can be used by the committee, by the Commission and so on. And also with this library we can see a couple things. One being it's more complex than sometimes we talk about. If you say which criteria are used by which member states, you start getting some complicated answers. Which fleet are you talking about, the small-scale or the large-scale, pelagics or demersals, over what time period and so on.
Also systems are much more complex in that it's not just which criteria do you use, a definition of small-scale, but how you're using it. So for example there might be a quota reserve, there might be a points-based system, there might be a use it or lose it provision saying we'll give you this quota but if you don't show that you're using it in the next three years then it goes back to the member state. Next slide. So from this library of the 237 criteria, we can then get an overview of which criteria are used by which member states.
And in this summary table you can see the member states going down the side and the criteria going across in columns. You might not be able to see the text you can in the report but I'll just highlight a couple practices that stand out. There are a couple criteria that are used almost in every single member state. So historical catch. That's kind of seen as the default in this space.
When you introduced a new policy lever you say we're going to do this gently we're going to allocate fishing opportunities based on how you've been fishing in the past. That was seen as maybe the the low risk strategy in terms of policy. Equal access is also used. So historical catch is used in 21 out of the 22. Equal access is also used in 21 of the 22.
That might be something like a bycatch quota pool. Or it might be like a quota pool for the small scale fleet. Other examples that are commonly used some sort of small scale coastal fleet definitions used in 13 member states. Efficiency of usage that would be like this use it or lose it provision is used in 13. Separate quota for newcomers who are trying to get into the fishery.
That's used in 12 cases and capacity is used in 11. Next slide. But it's not just if a criteria is used but how it's used. And it's weighting. So the diagram on the left you'll see there is a summary by the kind of groups of criteria.
Historical track record again we see is used 21 times. 19 of the 22 coastal member states use some form of social and economic criteria and 11 use some sort of environmental criteria. So just half of the member states use some environmental criteria. There are three member states actually that have neither social and economic nor environmental. So that's Belgium Netherlands and Slovenia.
Maybe in the Q and A we can get into the individual stories for for those three member states. But the point here is is on the right of the screen. Now this was just based on responses to the Commission questionnaire so I can't verify the accuracy of of the information. But when member states responded to the Commission questionnaire that said can you give a weighting on how much these different categories are used in your system not if you have social and economic criteria but how how much weighting do they have in your system. Well we can see that over two thirds of the quota is allocated based on historical track record.
And only a little bit kind of 10 15 percent for environmental or for social and economic. Meaning this is at the fringe. There might be a quota reserve set aside for a specific purpose but the bulk of the allocations is still historical track record. Next slide. So moving along to the key messages from this research and and the first one that stands out is well Article 17 is pretty weak.
It's broad and permissive. There's no requirement for any specific criteria to be used and it's left a member state competence. And we can kind of see this in in the demonstration in member states. So in 12 years there's never been a member state that's been pulled up for its allocations of fishing opportunities and the Commission says you've you've violated Article 17 and there's going to be some repercussions. There's no examples of that.
Also at the legal level there's been court cases in Lithuania France and in the UK when it was a member. All times the government the member state system was upheld. So it seems like basically the competence is a strong one still with member states and Article 17 hasn't shifted their practice.
And it was no, no, no across the board. Not a single member state says because Article 17 exists, because of the common fisheries policy, we've changed how we've done our allocations. And this has led to an expectations gap. There was a lot of hope from environmental NGOs and small-scale fishing organizations in the CFP reform that Article 17 would change the way fishing looked in Europe, and it hasn't happened. So the promise and the practice have diverged.
Next slide. Now, within member states themselves, they face some barriers to change, Article 17 regardless. So there is in some member states a fear that there'll be legal repercussions to take from one group of fishers and give to another. There's this legitimate expectation that if as a fisher for 30 years you've been allocated the same quota, 2% of the cod quota year after year after year, and then the government says, no, that's going to be 1%, we're going to give it to someone else, that there would be a legal case. So even though the member state systems have been upheld in court whenever this has been challenged, that is a concern that comes up quite often.
Also just at a political level, that fishing is politically marginal, so ministers would rather avoid a contentious overhaul of the system here. There's also practical concerns. It's complicated to design these systems in ways that work and actually deliver the outcomes that you want. And lastly, there's some structural problems. So some systems are quite privatized where quota is seen as a private asset.
You can go to the banks, you can get loans based on these quota allocations. And so those ITQs or transferable fishing concessions in the language of the CFP prevent certain reallocations. Or you can think of it the other way around. Some systems might be based on a pool. It says we have a group of quota here and everybody can use it more on a communal, collective basis.
That's fundamentally at odds of the idea of Article 17, which says we want to allocate it based on performance. So one system says everyone's equal. You can't adjust that system very easily and say, well, actually some deserve more quota than others. The existence of producer organizations that allocate quota within their members. All these things are structural barriers that make it a bit more challenging.
Whether it's an excuse or a justification is up to judgment, I suppose, but I think it's worth acknowledging these barriers. Next slide. And I guess the news gets worse because we do have some examples of quote best practices, but even in these cases, the best practices are not necessarily good practices. They haven't delivered exactly what we wanted to. So we have some examples where member states have reallocated quota, especially towards the small-scale fishing fleet.
You'll see some up on the screen, so that's Denmark, France, Malta, and Spain. These are quite recent, so we can't make big conclusions yet about what they've achieved, but we haven't seen that the catch of the small-scale fishing fleet of this quota has increased. There's individual stories behind all of this. The Baltic cod stocks has collapsed, so an increased share of a decreased stock doesn't really help you very much. But what we can see is that the small-scale fleet, 12 years on from Article 17, is not catching more of quota stocks than it was before.
In terms of member states that do have environmental criteria, they're very simple. It's usually a binary-based system. Do you fish with active gear, are you trawling, or do you fish with passive gear, a fixed net? It's just binary, you're one or the other. You can access a quota reserve because you're using passive gear.
But there's no examples of a real performance-based system that says fishers are graded on a spectrum of performance.
If you increase your performance, you get more quota. That doesn't exist. We don't have any system like that. And in terms of transparency, even when member states are kind of the best practice of transparency, they're publishing how their system works, it hasn't really led to satisfaction because there's hundreds of pages of recitals, but it doesn't mean stakeholders really understand how the system works. And there's also the difference between transparency on process, describing how the quota is allocated, and transparency over outcome.
So who actually holds the quota at the end? There's only two examples we have right now of public quota reserves, sorry, public quota registers where you can see who owns what. And I think that's what stakeholders were expecting or hoping for. Next slide. So how to move forward?
I guess the message is there might be some instruments to support quota allocation and fishing opportunities, not necessarily prescription. So I think one thing clear from this study is there's a lot of peer learning that could be done. We had those 237 instances of criteria usage, and member states can learn from each other. So there might be a role in convening to have that kind of learning. I think there's probably opportunities for policy innovation.
And again, I would point to something like environmental criteria judged on a spectrum of performance. If there can be pilots that are supported to try out those new systems. I think there can be more done on building on this study and the library built through future Commission questionnaires to kind of standardize the system and the understanding of how member state systems work. And we need to improve the evidence base as well in terms of what works. So if more quota is allocated to certain purposes, the small-scale fleet or low-impact fishing, does that actually lead to higher catches?
And does that lead to better outcomes for coastal communities? We don't know that yet. And lastly, I guess one more just on kind of the stick to the carrot, I suppose moving forward we need to know from the Commission as well how would it assess compliance with Article 16 and 17. When it says you need to use social and economic criteria, what does that entail? What's the list of criteria that would apply for that?
If Belgium says we have equal access to a quota pool, that's our social criteria, does that pass the bar or not? We don't know how it's evaluated. Next slide. So just ending, three kind of main message to take away. First, Article 17 has not shifted allocation and the policy has not delivered what was intended.
Member state systems, secondly, are still based on historical catches as the primary allocation means, with some sort of equal access common in other systems. And lastly, change lies with member state. So there might be a role for the EU to make it easier to change their systems, better informed and more visible. Thank you and I look forward to the questions.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Muchísimas gracias, señor Griffin Carpenter, por su estudio y por su prolija explicación. Y ahora le toca la palabra a todos los eurodiputados, comenzando por los coordinadores, y comienza la exposición la señora Decerle por parte del PPE.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Oui, merci Madame la Présidente. Cette étude arrive à point nommé puisque nous venons d'évaluer la politique commune des pêches et que nous sommes à quelques semaines des négociations sur les quotas. Donc elle soulève un point central. Mais elle s'arrête en fait aux dispositions prises par les États membres. Ce qui pourrait être intéressant, c'est d'analyser ce qui se passe ensuite au niveau des organisations de producteurs puisque c'est précisément à cet échelon que se joue ensuite la gestion concrète des sous-quotas.
En France par exemple la diversité des cadres de gestion elle est nécessaire pour refléter les spécificités de chaque bassin maritime. Le niveau de capture, la dépendance aux stocks, la saisonnalité, elle varie fortement selon les façades, les régions et les métiers et la répartition des sous-quotas au niveau des organisations de producteurs reste a priori l'échelle la plus cohérente car elle est au plus près de l'activité réelle des pêcheurs et elle conserve aussi une logique collective. Cela dit tout système de répartition doit avant tout garantir et on le dit, on le répète dans cette commission, de la stabilité et de la prévisibilité qui sont les conditions indispensables pour sécuriser l'investissement et la transmission des entreprises de pêche. Les références historiques elles répondent à cet objectif d'objectivité, vous l'avez dit, mais elles comportent aussi des limites qui sont bien connues et qu'on peut entendre lorsqu'on discute avec l'ensemble des acteurs. Donc je pense que cette étude va être intéressante pour l'ensemble des acteurs.
Je pense que l'enjeu il se situe sur cette objectivité, cette transparence accrue avec une meilleure application de l'article 17, une meilleure explication aussi beaucoup de pédagogie au niveau des États membres mais aussi des organisations de producteurs pour comprendre, pour analyser et surtout pour prendre des décisions qui sont à la fois respectueuses de la ressource halieutique mais qui permettent aux acteurs, aux pêcheurs, à l'ensemble de la filière de travailler et d'avoir vous l'avez dit d'ailleurs des critères socio-économiques qui sont absolument importants. L'économie, le social et l'environnement, les trois. Je vous remercie.
Eric Sargiacomo
Merci madame la présidente, je tiens à remercier beaucoup monsieur Carpenter pour ses précisions et son étude. En France il y a un débat très vif sur la répartition des possibilités de pêche surtout vis-à-vis de la petite pêche qui va même jusqu'au contentieux devant les tribunaux. Et force est de constater qu'effectivement les tribunaux ont confirmé ce que nous ont dit ce que nous a dit monsieur Carpenter c'est qu'il y a une très grande possibilité et latitude pour les États membres pour appliquer l'article 17. Alors pour moi il y a deux solutions soit on révise la PCP en précisant les objectifs de cet article 17 soit la commission prend ses responsabilités et engage une véritable mise en œuvre de cet article avec des lignes directrices qui permettent d'expliquer comment on applique les critères de la PCP. On peut polémiquer pendant des heures sur les critères sociaux et environnementaux mais pour moi la véritable urgence c'est le renouvellement générationnel.
Vous l'avez pas évoqué mais comment attirer des jeunes dans la profession en conditionnant l'installation à un prêt en plusieurs centaines de milliers d'euros sur des bateaux qui finalement sont extrêmement vieux. L'équation est insoluble surtout quand on a en tête l'incertitude sur les possibilités de pêche remises en cause annuellement. C'est la raison pour laquelle je milite depuis quelque temps à créer des réserves nationales de quotas destinés à l'installation des jeunes et qui leur garantissent une visibilité. L'énorme avantage du système est de redonner de la marge financière à des jeunes entrepreneurs qui pourraient envisager un investissement dans un navire neuf à faible empreinte carbone. Que pensez-vous effectivement que l'on puisse échapper à ces historiques de façon conditionnée pour des cibles précises?
Est-ce qu'il faut réviser la PCP ou se contenter de guidelines qui seraient plus précises de la part de la commission en ce domaine?
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Muchas gracias, ahora el señor Diepeveen por Patriotas por Europa. Ah, Madame Le Mer.
France Jamet
Merci, Madame la Présidente. C'est difficile d'aborder ce sujet aujourd'hui si on veut parler surtout effectivement des difficultés que rencontre la filière pêche sans aborder le drame qu'ont connu deux pêcheurs disparus en mer il y a trois jours chez nous dans la Manche. Et ce qui illustre bien les difficultés, le danger de ces métiers dont nous sommes dépendants par notre souveraineté alimentaire et qui est particulièrement dangereux, une des professions les plus dangereuses. On voit donc des hommes qui se battent contre des éléments et aujourd'hui contre des directives et des règlements dictés effectivement par l'Union européenne. Et discuter aujourd'hui des possibilités de pêche, c'est absolument fondamental, c'est sûr.
Le problème, c'est que cette étude est assez décevante, excusez-moi de vous le dire. Sur le fond, je pense que moi je suis en tout cas restée sur ma faim. Il n'y a pas d'indication sur les quotas disponibles sur telle ou telle espèce, sur la flotte, quelles autorisations de sur les quotas ou sur les espèces. Bref, c'est un travail explicatif mais qui aurait mérité d'être accompagné d'une analyse bien plus précise des conséquences du système actuel de répartition des quotas. Moi, c'est-à-dire que je voudrais on aurait dû parler, vous auriez dû discuter, développer le lien de causalité entre les décisions prises au plus haut niveau et leurs répercussions catastrophiques sur la filière pêche.
Vous l'avez évoqué d'une phrase, hein, c'est le système actuel conduit à une diminution du nombre de navires et à une concentration des quotas de pêche. Mais la question posée donc par ces modalités de répartition des quotas en amène une autre. Quel est le modèle de pêche qu'on est en train de favoriser dans l'Union européenne ? Ici, par exemple, beaucoup, enfin en tout cas certains pensent que la grosse pêche financiarisée, pardon, n'est pas incompatible avec la pêche artisanale. Or on sait que c'est faux et comme je viens de vous le dire, la pêche artisanale est confrontée à de beaucoup plus grandes difficultés, donc mérite de beaucoup plus grandes attentions.
On aurait pu attendre en fait de cette étude des chiffres qui démontrent cette évidence, mais je suis désolée mais il n'y a pratiquement aucun chiffre et aucune donnée dans ce rapport. Et c'est précisément, je pense, que cette ignorance feinte qui engage certains décideurs politiques à persévérer dans une voie mortifère pour nos pêcheurs artisans. Je pense qu'on est passé à côté et que je pense qu'on est face à une occasion manquée, c'est bien dommage. Alors, dernier mot, je voudrais en tout cas appeler mes chers collègues, je pense que nous serons en majorité d'accord ici. La seule option viable, c'est de mettre au plus vite ici sur la table un projet de réforme effectivement sur la PCP et qui prenne enfin en compte la pêche artisanale et qui propose une vraie réforme de la répartition des quotas, c'est-à-dire une répartition juste, justifiée et équilibrée.
Je pense que le statu quo aujourd'hui n'est plus tenable, je viens de le dire, ni pour nos pêcheurs, ni pour notre souveraineté alimentaire.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Muchas gracias, señor Ruissen por ECR.
Dank u wel, voorzitter, en dank aan de heer Carpenter voor zijn belangrijke studie over de toedeling van de vangstquota.
En ik denk ook eerlijk gezegd ook dat we daar zuinig op moeten zijn, voorzitter. En dat we moeten oppassen met grote fundamentele wijzigingen in het systeem. De onderzoekers wijzen er denk ik ook terecht op dat toewijzing van de vangstquota een bevoegdheid is van de lidstaten. En ik denk dat het belangrijk is wat dat betreft die bevoegdheid te respecteren en lidstaten ook daar de keuzemogelijkheden in te houden. Dat gezegd zijnde, denk ik wel dat we natuurlijk moeten kunnen dat we moeten blijven kijken ook naar verbetering van het systeem.
Ik zeg niet dat alles wat nu zoals het nu geregeld is dat het honderd procent oké is. Natuurlijk moet je kijken naar verbetermogelijkheden. Dan denk ik zelf heel concreet aan de jonge vissers. Wat kunnen we voor hen betekenen? Want we zien ook wel dat het voor starters steeds lastiger wordt om aan quota te komen.
Welke mogelijkheden ziet u op dat vlak? En wat zou u wel aanbevelen aan de lidstaten op dat vlak? Zou een systeem van tijdelijke quotapools waarschijnlijk behulpzaam kunnen zijn in dit verband? Ik ben erg benieuwd hoe u hiernaar kijkt. Een tweede vraag die ik nog zou willen stellen is, ja, wat zouden we kunnen doen aan het feit dat we natuurlijk toch te maken hebben met soms veranderingen in bestanden en dat bestanden soms visbestanden bijvoorbeeld ook opschuiven bijvoorbeeld als gevolg van klimaatverandering.
Ik denk heel concreet aan tonijn. Tonijn komt nu ook in toenemende mate voor in de Noordzee. Maar de Nederlandse Noordzeevissers bijvoorbeeld hebben geen historische rechten daarvoor. Maar zou het dan bijvoorbeeld misschien toch mogelijk zijn om te kijken of die de vissers daar misschien toch gebruik van kunnen maken bijvoorbeeld via regels voor incidentele vangsten of bijvangsten. Welke ruimte of mogelijkheden ziet u daarvoor?
Dank.
Asger Christensen
Mange tak for præsentationen. Det er interessant at høre de muligheder der er, men også jeg savner, vi savner en vigtig del af forudsigelsen i det her. Vi ønsker alle at se de investeringer, der bliver lavet i fiskeriet og innovation i fiskeriet, men også at vi får nye fiskere, unge fiskere ind i erhvervet. Det er en meget vigtig del, hvis vi skal fremtidssikre erhvervet, at vi får nogle unge mennesker ind i erhvervet, og det kræver en forudsigelighed i forhold til kvoterne. Når du har lavet din studie, har du kigget på det aspekt, og hvor kan der laves forandringer, så vi kan sikre forudsigeligheden, specielt for de unge, den bliver bedre.
Tak.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Muchas gracias y ahora le toca la palabra a Greens a la señora Al-Sahlani.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to our expert for the presentation. So, I think the starting point of all fisheries management is that fish in the sea belongs to all the citizens and to future generations. So, I think the competence of Member States to allocate fishing opportunities to transparent and objective criteria is really something that is underused.
And as you explained in the beginning, is of course something that the fishermen would like to keep and and also increase their fishing opportunities. And if you could introduce social, environmental criteria or selective fishing etc. and you would get increased fishing opportunities, that's a really great thing, great way to manage the commonly owned resource which is the fish. So I think it's really regrettable to hear that 12 years after Article 17 was adopted that it hasn't been hasn't changed absolutely nothing. And the passive way that governments are managing our common resource. Now, in the Baltic Sea, for instance, 90% of the herring and sprat catches is going to fishmeal and fish oil, not for human consumption.
And a very, very small part is going to human consumption. And this is driving small-scale fishermen out of their livelihoods. And I personally now traveled two weeks along the the Baltic coast and I've seen with my own eyes that we we don't have any small-scale fishermen left almost. So my question to you is, is there any legal hindrance to introduce a criteria that you can only fish for human consumption? And also the fear of member states that if you introduce these types of criteria you end up in court, is that based on any reality?
And how can the Commission improve its guidelines because it's been one year of guidelines now and as far as I can tell there's hasn't been any change since then. Thank you.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much and thanks for the insightful report. I and many others here for years have been calling for proper implementation of Article 17 and it's disappointing as the previous speaker has said to see that nothing, hardly anything has changed since 2014. But it confirms, it's down there in black and white and in color, that this is the reality. And it's good to know the reality. Like having a speedometer in your car, it's good to know it's right.
Unfortunately, we are correct, we're speeding. One detail that really jumped out was Table 6 on page 39 on transparency of allocation of fishing opportunities. Eight of the 22 member states listed in that table have assessed and reported themselves as fully transparent in relation to their allocation process and outcome. However, the column showing the independent assessment of the published outcome concludes that there is no transparency in these eight cases, including Ireland. That's quite a difference of opinion.
I'm not making a mistake here. This is the reality if anyone is listening. I welcome the report's call for an improvement in the design of the Commission questionnaires to assess allocation under Article 17. The 2023 STECF report concluded that the Irish quota allocation process was transparent based on answers from national authorities to the 2023 questionnaire. Now you're stunned if you actually know anything about this when you hear that.
The same report describes Ireland's Quota Management Advisory Committee as a positive example in terms of transparency and engaging stakeholders. This completely ignores the reality that until very recently the Quota Management Advisory Committee was not obliged to publish even minutes and Ireland's two small-scale fishers organization didn't have a representative on this committee until they became producer organizations in '21 and '23. And they went through hell to get recognition.
I have two questions. If national authorities have self-reported that their Article 17 allocation criteria, processes and outcomes are transparent, when they are not transparent according to independent assessment, then where is the motivation for change going to come from? And a final question. The report confirms that historical track record is still the dominant criteria used for allocation, and we know that this criterion impedes access to fishing opportunities for small-scale fishers who often don't have the documentation to prove historical track record. How can we ensure that national authorities provide a wider scope and heavier weighting to the environmental, social and economic criteria in order to achieve the effect of Article 17?
And thanks again for your report.
Francisco José Millán Mon
Gracias, presidenta. Quiero dar las gracias también al autor del estudio, al señor Carpenter, por el papel y su presentación. Desde luego, yo creo que todos pensamos que la política pesquera de la Unión debe prestar una atención especial a la pesca artesanal y de bajura. Representa alrededor del 70% de la flota europea y es fundamental para el empleo y la economía de las comunidades costeras. Yo personalmente, y desde luego mi grupo, y yo como diputado gallego, pues soy consciente de la importancia de la flota artesanal.
Y este compromiso pues con la pesca artesanal lo hemos mantenido en las negociaciones del reglamento de control, buscando pues particularidades o singularidades para esta para este sector, y también en el reglamento, en el FEMPA, ¿no? En cuanto a la asignación de las posibilidades de pesca, yo, la hora nos lo repetía, está claro que no existe un único modelo europeo. Los sistemas nacionales son muy diversos, parecen responder a características de cada pesquería, etcétera. Pero lo cierto es que el historial de captura sigue siendo un criterio prevalente, si se puede decir así. Está en 21 de los 22 sistemas, nos decía ahora.
Es cierto que la PPC del 2013 no ha supuesto un cambio de este en este en este orden de cosas. Y me parece que es usted bastante crítico, que dice el artículo 17 no ha logrado catalizar un cambio estructural, porque de hecho los criterios medioambientales y sociales prácticamente se olvidan o se marginan, etcétera. Y lo cierto también es que el 17 establece que son los Estados miembros los que tienen que determinar la ponderación de los criterios. Por tanto, es un tema que está jurídicamente resuelto, como nos recordaba pues está en el vademécum de la Comisión. Y yo creo que incluso hay sentencias nacionales, yo creo que tribunales franceses dijeron eso claro, que la competencia era de los Estados miembros.
Y también el incluso en su época los británicos también algún tribunal británico dijo alguna cosa así. Pero en todo caso, lo ve usted, aunque es crítico, su estudio dice que la transparencia ha mejorado, que existe un alto grado de objetividad en los criterios utilizados, etcétera. Pero en fin, yo creo yo comparto varias de las recomendaciones de su estudio: fomentar el intercambio de buenas prácticas, mejorar la transparencia de los sistemas, clarificar cómo evalúa la Comisión esa conformidad de las normas nacionales con el artículo 17. Parece conveniente también eso. Hay una conclusión o una aportación suya que me parece relevante.
En algunos Estados miembros, creo que eran cuatro, ha habido reasignaciones de posibilidades de pesca en favor de la pesca artesanal. Me refiero en los últimos años. Pues bien, estas medidas no parecen haber producido cambios significativos en la participación de la pesca artesanal en las capturas. ¿Estamos poniendo entonces demasiado énfasis, demasiado foco en los criterios de asignación? No sé cómo lo ve usted.
¿O piensa que en el fondo la diversidad responde a razones objetivas, etcétera, y que es muy difícil encontrar un auténtico modelo? En segundo lugar, si los efectos de los cambios o de los criterios de asignación parecen relativamente modestos frente a otros factores como la estructura de la flota, el recurso, etcétera, ¿qué medidas consideraría más eficaces para fortalecer la pesca artesanal? ¿Qué usted qué sugiere en esa línea de prestar atención especial? ¿Qué otros instrumentos podrían ser útiles para esto? Y termino con una reflexión.
Yo creo que tampoco se trata aquí de oponer la pesca artesanal a la pesca de mediana altura o a la pesca industrial. Yo creo que todas son útiles y necesarias si están bien reguladas, etcétera. La cuestión es encontrar un equilibrio y yo comprendo que los criterios históricos pues claro son objetivos, están ahí y facilitan la cosa. En todo caso creo que los cambios aquí no deben hacerse desde arriba. Yo creo que es importante el diálogo con el sector.
A mí me parece esto clave. A la hora de cambiar no hagamos cosas jacobinas o centralistas solo desde el poder atendiendo a criterios equis medioambientales, históricos, etcétera. Hablemos con los sectores afectados. A mí me parece importante que aquí los legisladores y sobre todo quienes deciden que son los estados y los gobiernos tengan en cuenta que para los cambios en esta materia el diálogo con el sector o mejor sectores afectados es esencial. Gracias.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Muchas gracias, señor Carpen. Ahora me toca a mí hablar como eurodiputada. Decirle que evidentemente le damos las gracias por el informe y por toda la cuestión pormenorizada que usted y su equipo ha hecho al respecto. Y le podemos comentar lo, por lo menos por mi parte, lo siguiente que coincide mucho con muchos de los eurodiputados que me han precedido en la palabra. En primer lugar, creo que la transparencia siempre es positiva, muy importante que se conozca y sobre todo hay un tema que tenemos que trabajarlo aún más y es la involucrar a los sectores dentro de las decisiones.
Esto es un tema que siempre estamos viéndolo, pero luego instituciones nacionales, incluso a la Comisión Europea le cuesta esta premisa que es absolutamente importante para ver cuáles son las soluciones prácticas que se pueden dar en el sistema. Creo que todo ello se está planteando en lo que ya hemos hablado. El cambio de la PPC tiene que ser inminente en muchos de los aspectos que se han planteado aquí. Pero además de ello, yo creo que involucrar al sector es uno de los grandes objetivos que el Parlamento, la Comisión, los Estados miembros tienen que hacer. Bajo mi punto de vista, uniformar en este caso no es positivo.
Uniformar la pesquería en Europa no puede ocurrir porque los Estados miembros tienen que tener cierta discrecionalidad a la hora de determinar algunas decisiones, ya que la pesquería es muy diversa y las zonas son muy diversas. Bajo mi punto de vista se ha tenido muy en cuenta y ha habido mucho rigor al respecto de los criterios medioambientales al respecto que se han utilizado con bastante asiduidad y lógicamente. Pero sí es verdad que las cuestiones socioeconómicas y los informes de impacto en muchas ocasiones no se han puesto encima de la mesa. Y esa es la realidad que muchas decisiones se han tomado al respecto. El tema medioambiental incluso con informes oficiales cuando hay también entidades que se han ofrecido a entregar algunos informes adicionales y no se han querido tener en cuenta aun siendo informes de entidades públicas y en este caso podían ayudar a las decisiones al respecto.
Creo que tenemos que tener en cuenta la competitividad como aquí se ha dicho, el relevo generacional del sector en el futuro y muy de acuerdo lo que se acaba de comentar aquí con la reserva para jóvenes. Creo que en este momento nos tenemos que tomar muy en serio la situación del relevo generacional que está prácticamente perdido en nuestra en la comunidad europea y que en estos momentos tenemos que tomarlo más en serio que nunca. Creemos en este caso la DG MARE hablará a continuación, pero las aseveraciones que la DG MARE ha hecho al respecto de la asignación de cuotas creo que van en este caso con la mejor intención del mundo pero a veces en contra también de criterios que en este momento necesitan los pescadores para tener también un acicate rápido para el sector. Hace muy poco esta comisión estuvo en las Azores donde vimos realmente el sector pesquero con una un sobreesfuerzo increíble por adaptarse a todas las circunstancias en cambio. Lo que más se quejaban aparte de la merma del sector es la preocupación profunda de la situación de aquellas poblaciones de la Unión Europea que comparte por ejemplo con terceros países o que las normas a las que estamos sometidos lógicamente exigentes no la tengamos con flotas que están cercanas a nosotros y que desde luego le debemos o debemos el tener una trazabilidad clarísima y también un control de lo que importamos a la Unión Europea.
Por tanto ellos se ven damnificados por las decisiones que estamos tomando acerca de la asignación de cuotas cuando no estamos poniendo un control especial sobre lo que nos vienen de terceros países incluso alguno con los que tenemos acuerdos fundamentales y prioritarios cercanos a la Unión Europea. Por tanto yo creo que la justicia el la justicia está el principio de la transparencia obviamente el artículo 17 que hay que complementar. Yo creo que la coordinación entre Estados miembros es muy positiva pero no la uniformidad porque iguales no somos en todos los territorios y hay que dejar discrecionalidad a los Estados miembros que tomen algunas decisiones bajo las directrices de la Unión Europea pero evidentemente con sus especificidades para poder adaptar las decisiones también a las distintas zonas de la Unión Europea. Y por supuesto estar más pendientes de la competitividad que en este momento es fundamental para el futuro de la flota. Muchas gracias.
Y ahora creo que ningún eurodiputado o eurodiputada más y tiene usted perdón perdón sí. A continuación la DG MARE. Ah perdón señor Ciccioli quería también hacer aseveraciones al respecto. Tiene usted la palabra.
Carlo Ciccioli
Sì grazie. Io sono molto perplesso su questa relazione. Cioè l'unica politica della Commissione europea è la diminuzione dello sforzo di pesca e il prelievo è sempre più esigente ovviamente perché le popolazioni nel mercato dell'alimentazione il pesce è una cosa che va molto. L'importazione dai paesi extraeuropei è sempre più massiccia. La prospettiva in Europa la tendenza è cessare l'attività di pesca.
Progressivamente è così. Nella mia città la mia città di mare nel mare Adriatico Ancona negli ultimi decenni siamo passati da 120 barche a 43 barche cioè un terzo delle barche perché non c'è margine più per l'attività economica. E quindi l'unica prospettiva che invece io chiedo alla Commissione europea è iniziare ad approfondire in maniera forte il tema della maricoltura e dell'acquacoltura cioè coltivare il mare come si coltiva la terra. Questa è l'unica prospettiva spazi di mare dove si agevola la riproduzione delle specie anche con tecniche scientifiche non solo la protezione e questa è l'unica politica possibile se vogliamo mantenere la pesca altrimenti la prospettiva in Europa è chiudere la pesca.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Le damos la palabra por tanto al señor Carpenter que va a comentar un poco todas las apreciaciones que han hecho todos sus señorías.
Griffin Carpenter
Yes, many good questions. Thank you very much. I'll try to address them in order. So first we have the point about producer organizations. And yes, this is highly, highly relevant to France, which is that the government allocates the quota to producer organizations.
Producer organizations allocate the quota amongst their members. We know something about how the first step is done. We know almost nothing about how the second step is done. And in many ways that's the more important step. This study doesn't get us any further.
This study looks at allocations at the first level, if you will, the first tier of the allocations. And in a way that's the only one we have a little bit of control over is what member states, what the governments are doing. What producer organizations do, well now we're talking about private organizations. This is getting more difficult about how we can twist the policy lever of quota allocation. So I'm afraid it only gets more difficult and more nuanced in the study and less power at the EU level.
But for sure we need a greater understanding over how this works. And even talking to people in France, they don't really know what's going on in the producer organizations. They operate like private, private organizations. It's trade secret, if you will. Then we had a question on new entrants.
And I agree this is probably the way in for major overhauls. If we're talking about how can we really change quota allocation at the member state level. I think new entrants is the issue that almost everybody in the sector agrees there's a problem. And relying on historical track record is the antithesis of dealing with that problem. So if there's any hope of, you know, a major reform of quota allocation, I think it has to go hand in hand with thinking about how to get some quota in the hands of new entrants, young people into the fishing fleet.
And it's not clear to me how Article 17, Article 17 2.0 in any future reform or anything like that would require that. I would look more to advocacy at the member state level, at each member state reform happening at that level. There was also a question about the study scope. How far can we go in terms of saying that a specific policy, a specific allocation of quota to a fleet segment, small-scale fleet, passive gear, drift nets and so on, actually leads to an outcome? What's the impact of all of this?
And for sure that causal link is not known. So before we can say whether these allocation practices have destroyed fisheries, well you need to know the causal link. You need to prove that. You need to do impact assessment. And I agree that's the next step.
But you can't do that until you have the library of fishing quotas and criteria that this study put together. So this is the first step in order to do the second step. Then we have a kind of a defense of historical track record, that it's important to have these historical rights for investment. And I think it's true, but there's a lot of nuance here. So we have in Europe several countries that use these more privatized systems, ITQs or transferable fishing concessions in the language of the CFP.
They're not all the same. So Netherlands doesn't have kind of a period where the quota is valid, where it says the quota is valid for 20 years and then it goes back to the state and we'll decide who to allocate it to. That contrasts with Denmark, for example, where that was for eight years. So you had this private right in a way, this fishing quota that you had for eight years and then it went back to the government and they could decide, hmm, maybe we'll give it to a different fisher this time, a new entrant, a different fishing fleet. That's now been extended to 16 years.
But the point is different countries said we're uncomfortable with this kind of privatization of quota, we at least want a period of time in which it reverts back to the state. So there's different options here. There's not only one. Then yes, a very good point and reminder of course about the public resource.
But the point is different countries said, we're uncomfortable with this kind of privatization of quota, we at least want a period of time in which it reverts back to the state. So there's different options here, there's not only one. Then yes, a very good point and and reminder of course about the public resource aspect of fishing opportunities. And I think we'll come back to that a little bit later. And an interesting idea about a possible criterion related to fish being used for human consumption.
And I don't think there is a legal problem per se, that's one of the messages coming out of this is member states have quite a lot of discretion here. But I think there's maybe a practical problem which is you don't know when you catch and land the fish and sell it at the auction where it's going to end up after that. So you can't really control that a specific fisher is accountable for where that fish is imported or exported or processed or something else. So I see more of a practical problem than than a legal problem there, albeit a very interesting idea. And then there was the point about transparency.
And indeed one of the problems with this study is that we have kind of self-reported practices from member states responding to a Commission survey, is your system transparent? Yes or no, tick. And that's a little bit more difficult than as a researcher if you're going to accept that or if you're going to try to make a judgment yourself. And and neither one is completely comfortable because for sure you know less about 22 systems than the fishing administrations. So I'll just leave it there to say where possible in this study it was making a judgment call.
So for example, a member state might say, we have an environmental criteria, it's based on the length of fishing vessels. And you say, well, is that actually environmental or is that just a small-scale definition that you say is related to the environmental impact? So filling out this survey proved unreliable that multiple member states would have the same system and they'll tick different boxes for which criteria was used. Transparency is maybe the most obvious example of this where there's kind of no downside of of clicking transparent. But even at a more philosophical level, what is transparency?
Right, so if if Ireland says, we have the QMAC, it makes quota allocation decisions, and we publish when those meetings are. Okay, you've described the system, but that's not transparency per se. Maybe it's it's more of a spectrum than a than a yes or no perhaps. Small-scale fisheries in in Galicia. Yeah, I think in terms of what tools we can use on on that point, I I see it as a bit of a conflict with another point that was raised about involving the sector and kind of this local decision-making being the best.
Again we have this kind of tension over wanting to steer things at the EU level while at the same time recognizing that producer organizations in France or or the Cofradías in Spain have this specialized knowledge. So I don't know, I just see a tension there in how much can be said at the EU level while also acknowledging that we need to be dynamic and and allow that flexibility at the local level. Oh yeah, in terms of the the reallocations. Yeah, it's it's an interesting point and there was the slide up with the graph showing that the reallocations hadn't led to an increase in small-scale landings.
It is a little bit new still. So we'll see in a couple years. Maybe that's a bit too optimistic that the reallocations were kind of in the last couple years. We're just getting landing data now. So we're only now figuring out if the small-scale fleet has increased their landings.
And you know, there's also some investment that needs to take place. If you announce now we're reallocating some quota, maybe now a fisher would reinvest in their vessel or they'd take on an extra crew member. So maybe in a couple years we'll have a bit of a different answer. But it is definitely true that the reallocations were a small percentage. So there's only a ceiling of how much the small-scale could increase.
Last comments. Yeah, again about involving the sector in these conversations, these decisions about allocations. And of course that that's good and intuitive. I would just emphasize that the public resource point is relevant here as well. And I think part of the issue we've had in these discussions over quota allocations is well, some of the relevant parties are essentially shut out, meaning future generations for the environment or people who don't hold fishing opportunities.
So discussing with people who hold the fishing opportunities about how they should be allocated produces a different answer than discussing to the people who do not hold the fishing opportunities. So in involving stakeholders, I think we need a wider a wider net, if you will. And yeah, lastly, I guess imports from outside the EU and aquaculture. We didn't look at that in particular with this study. But in terms of thinking of impacts, just a caution perhaps on on focusing on the number of vessels.
I believe in every developed economy in the world, the number of fishing vessels is declining over time. So it's not always the best metric of success or failure in fisheries policy. But for sure, I hope this study and in building this criteria of of usage for fishing opportunities can allow more of these impact assessments over EU and Member State policy.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Pues muchísimas gracias. Ahora sí tiene la palabra de por cinco minutos la DG MARE, la señora Dopil-Baugauskaite.
Dopil-Baugauskaite
Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Carpenter, for the presentation. I must say that we all listened here with great interest the presentation and the following questions and the answers. And let me on behalf of the Commission to to warmly welcome this study and its timing just as we enter into this important reflection period following the CFP evaluation and what will follow.
So I think this is a very important input. And we also glad that our information from our Vademecum work also managed to to feed into it. And thanks a lot to the PECH Committee also for organizing this presentation. So just to be brief and just to say that actually, I would say this is probably one of the most consensual PECH Committee points that I've ever attended because I think it's really difficult for a for me at least to say that there are some points that we disagree. When we look at the study, we actually it's quite striking to see how closely the findings of the study align with what we put in the Vademecum, the assessment that we carried out to support the Vademecum, and as well the the findings of the CFP evaluation.
So we definitely agree on the main points of the study is that the the national quota allocations across the Member States remain predominantly tied to historical catch rights, which unfortunately create the inertia of maintaining the same behavior and unfortunately not contributing to the high expectations for Article 17 to drive and to incentivize the desired behavioral change.
The option to allocate quotas using criteria of an environmental, social, and economic nature remains underutilized. We also saw that, and this also comes out from the study. And the persistent reliance on the historical footprint, as Mr. Carpenter said, also continues to place the small-scale and the young fishers at a disadvantage. So we completely agree with that. In May we were here to present the Vademecum, so I will not really talk a lot about the Vademecum.
We had presented it in November 2025, and it comes as the fulfillment of our commitment made in the communication of 2023 on the sustainable fisheries. We reconfirmed this commitment in the European Ocean Pact, and we also answered the call of the European Parliament through the Roos report to adopt some sort of guidance on the Article 17. Now, the key objective of the Vademecum was actually to encourage the Member States to improve the governance through transparency, fairness, as was mentioned quite several times, accuracy, and suitable allocation methods, while actively urging them to use Article 17's full potential to support small-scale coastal fishers and reward low-impact and selective practices. Through the Vademecum, we reminded the Member States that allocation methods should use objective, transparent, environmental, social, and economic criteria, just as is established in Article 17. And we also, very importantly, what also was brought by MEP Roose, we also brought up to the Member States, we encouraged them to periodically reassess their systems so that they can be adapting to the changes that happen, so that they could continue encourage the desired behavior to reallocate and use quotas and stay aligned with the modern fleet needs.
So, as also highlighted in the CFP evaluation, CFP regulation evaluation, and this study and our Vademecum, the allocation of the national quotas remains a national responsibility, and it is the prerogative of the Member States. It is what it is, this is the question of the competences. And totally agree with the study that Article 17 is very broad and very permissive. That's the way it was drafted, and that's the way it is in the current regulation, and it deliberately confers the discretion upon the Member States to weigh the environmental, social, and economic criteria according to the national priorities. Quota allocation is their competence, and which limits the scope for the Commission to intervene in a domestic distribution choices, as was also noted by the presentation.
But what we tried to do with the Vademecum, to use whatever leverage the Commission has, to compile the information that we had received from the Member States, which although was not easy, also because what was highlighted in the study, there are hundreds of criteria being used and it's very difficult to even collect them because the information is not publicly available sometimes. But what we tried to do with the Vademecum is to collect the best practices, to incentivize the Member States, to give them the tools to push for the positive change, and as Mr. Carpenter said, to create this peer-learning experience for them to learn from each other. And we are already actually see some positive developments. Yes, it might be slow, it was 12 years, but we already see in some Member States like Spain, Germany, and France some positive trends in rethinking their quota allocation systems to address these discrepancies. So we are cautiously optimistic that our message through the Vademecum was heard, but please rest assured that this is not the end and we will continue working with the Member States to see what can we do as the Commission to help them improve their national systems.
And thank you, sorry for being too late.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Bueno, pues muchísimas gracias a todos. Cerramos si les parece este punto y, como saben, dándole las gracias también por el informe al señor Carpenter, a su equipo y yo creo que no será la última vez que nos veamos con este asunto tan importante para los pescadores y para el sector en general. Y vamos a pasar, dándole las gracias a todos los que han intervenido, a la aplicación del Reglamento de la Unión Europea 1379/2013 por el que se establece la organización común de mercados en el sector de los productos de pesca y de la acuicultura: etiquetado de origen, trazabilidad y competencia leal. Me gustaría dar la bienvenida al representante de la Comisión, que en primer lugar el señor Sven Langedijk, jefe de la unidad de la DG MARE, que durante ocho minutos nos va a hacer la presentación y a continuación le daremos la palabra a los coordinadores. Así que adelante, señor Langedijk, cuando usted quiera.
Sven Langedijk
Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks members of the PECH Committee for this opportunity to exchange views on the implementation of the common market organisation for fisheries and aquaculture products and in particular on the issues of origin labelling, traceability and fair competition. The common market organisation is the market pillar of the common fisheries policy and since the 2013 reform has provided a common EU framework covering professional organisations, marketing standards, consumer information, competition rules and market intelligence. And consumer information is an important part of this market framework. It contributes to transparency, it enables consumers to make informed choices and supports thus the proper market functioning. And clear and reliable information is also important for the level playing field.
The operators need to compete on a fair basis and consumers need confidence in the information accompanying a product regardless of where it has been produced. So these are particularly important considerations in a market where a large share of the consumed fishery and aquaculture products is imported and that is why the same labelling requirements apply to products marketed in the EU irrespective of their origin. But consumer information is only one element of the broader question of fair competition and the EU also uses the IUU framework, traceability, the catch system and its international fisheries policy to promote legality and higher standards beyond its own waters and operators. The dimension of fair competition was a key aspect in the evaluation of the CFP regulation which was published in April and this did not constitute a full evaluation of the common market organisation regulation. It did examine the CMO's contribution to the wider objectives of the common fisheries policy.
And the evaluation concluded that the common market organisation supports a level playing field by establishing harmonised rules. It contributes to market transparency and helps avoid fragmentation of the single market. And the existing mandatory information continues to be valued. The common market organisation requires consumers to get information including on the species, the production method, the area where the product was caught or farmed and for wild-caught products the fishing gear.
At the same time, this evaluation also identifies points on consumer information which merit closer examination. First of all, the consumer consumption patterns have evolved, and in particular, prepared and preserved products account for a growing share of consumption, but they are not covered by the mandatory CMO requirements, so consumers do not have the same level of information for an increasing share of the market. Second, the evaluation also points to the usability of some of the information that is currently provided, and in particular, the catch area information can be technical or difficult to interpret and sometimes ambiguous, and this can reduce the practical value for consumers when comparing products and making purchasing choices. And these findings raise some questions about whether consumers receive sufficiently comparable and understandable information across different types of products. And in the consultations during the evaluation, some stakeholders suggested that the scope of the CMO consumer information requirements should be extended to prepared and preserved products to better reflect the growing importance of these products, and some stakeholders also proposed that existing information, and in particular on catch areas, could be made clearer and easier for consumers to understand, for example, by displaying the flag state of a vessel.
We will need to examine these issues further before assessing possible actions to address them. And this assessment must also take account of developments elsewhere in the regulatory framework. The revised fisheries control regulation is strengthening digital traceability throughout the supply chain. Its requirements are being phased in, including for prepared and preserved products. And we also need to ensure the right balance.
Providing more product information does not automatically mean better regulation, and any strengthening of mandatory requirements would need to be carefully assessed. Information should be useful, clear, and credible without overwhelming consumers or creating disproportionate burdens. This is particularly relevant given the focus on simplification and burden reduction. So we must make sure that the policy goals are achieved in the simplest and least burdensome way while maintaining our high consumer and sustainability standards. So on that basis, I would underline three priorities.
First, ensuring that the existing consumer information rules are effectively and consistently applied. Second, making full use of strengthened digital traceability to underpin transparency and fair competition, including for imported products. And third, to openly look at whether consumer information can be improved in light of the recent evaluation while ensuring that any future action is targeted, proportionate, and consistent with our simplification and burden reduction objectives. So we're looking forward to hearing members' views on how to best strike this balance. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Muchísimas gracias, señor Langevic, y ahora la palabra la tienen los coordinadores, empezando por el Partido Popular Europeo, la señora Isabel Le-Kallennec.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Oui, merci Madame la Présidente, et avant de m'exprimer, j'aimerais à mon tour avoir une pensée pour la communauté des pêcheurs, ce sont des Bretons qui pleurent aujourd'hui deux de leurs collègues emportés par le naufrage du Maranello ce week-end, dans la nuit de samedi à dimanche. C'est à eux que vont mes pensées, à leurs familles. Merci beaucoup d'avoir accepté de parler du règlement OCM. On parle souvent du règlement OCM pour l'agriculture, mais je pense qu'il est absolument nécessaire d'en parler aussi pour la pêche. Et donc ce règlement OCM a fait l'objet d'une évaluation par la Commission, mais nous avons finalement assez peu parlé de ce sujet lorsque le Commissaire est venu présenter l'évaluation de la PCP début juin.
Et ce que règle cette OCM, c'est très important, j'ai envie de dire c'est stratégique.
Le rôle des organisations de producteurs et des interprofessions, on en a parlé tout à l'heure. Des dérogations possibles au droit de la concurrence. Les normes de commercialisation. Des mécanismes de gestion de crise ou bien l'information obligatoire du consommateur, et je vais y revenir. Donc c'est absolument stratégique.
Le principe sous-jacent, c'est qu'une bonne valorisation économique des captures est une condition de la durabilité. Un pêcheur qui est mal payé, il est incité à pêcher plus, pas moins, et l'OCM cherche donc à concilier la gestion durable de la ressource, la viabilité économique de la filière en donnant aux producteurs des outils collectifs pour peser sur le marché plutôt que de le subir. Donc ça va absolument dans le bon sens. Alors j'insisterais pour ma part sur la question de l'information du consommateur. Nous le disons et nous le répétons ici régulièrement, plus des trois quarts des produits de la mer que nous consommons sont importés.
Et l'information au consommateur sur l'origine des produits est primordiale, c'est d'ailleurs demandé à plusieurs titres. Plus de transparence, une meilleure traçabilité. Ça permettrait aussi de lutter plus efficacement contre la pêche illégale. Ça éviterait que des produits issus de la pêche illégale puissent entrer sur le marché européen. Et enfin, ça permettrait de valoriser les produits.
Alors la Commission manifestement, et je vous remercie de cette présentation, envisage de proposer une révision du règlement OCM qui permettrait justement cette meilleure traçabilité. Vous avez commencé à ébaucher des pistes sur l'étiquetage, sur le pavillon. Et donc ma question est de savoir s'il y a la volonté, s'il y aura le chemin, si la Commission compte légiférer, faire évoluer, réviser et surtout si elle a un calendrier pour ça. Le calendrier sera très important parce que je pense qu'il faut maintenir la pression maintenant qu'on a l'évaluation. Je vous en remercie.
Eric Sargiacomo
Merci Madame la Présidente, merci à la Commission. En juin dernier, nous avions une audition sur la pêche illégale et la protection des pêcheurs européens. Le constat que nous avions dressé est sans appel. Nos cadres juridiques ne correspondent plus à la réalité du marché. Nous ne protégeons ni nos producteurs ni les consommateurs européens.
Les exemples sont éloquents. Nous ne produisons que 0,5 % du saumon à l'échelle mondiale, le reste est importé et les méthodes de production pour le moins questionnables, comme par exemple la part de la pêche minotière dans l'alimentation de ces fameux saumons. Même constat pour les crevettes et l'aquaculture en général. S'agissant de la pêche, on retrouve massivement dans les congélateurs des supermarchés européens calamars ou noix de Saint-Jacques pêchés en Argentine par la pêche chinoise bien souvent. Produits dans des conditions sociales et environnementales bien loin de nos normes, il faut le reconnaître.
Sans parler évidemment du cabillaud pêché par la flotte russe. Bref, admettons enfin que nous ne nous sommes uniquement concentrés que sur la gestion de la ressource, ce qui est essentiel mais occulte toute intervention sur le marché. Les premiers pénalisés sont nos producteurs européens avec des vraies distorsions de concurrence avec les importations. Il est grand temps de rétablir un équilibre sur le marché et cela passe par le règlement OCM.
Quand je compare celui consacré à l'agriculture dont je suis rapporteur avec celui dédié à la pêche, le pas à franchir est sérieusement immense. Manque d'information pour le consommateur, pas d'origine dans la restauration, pas de transparence dans les plats préparés, absence d'un label européen ou de la promotion des productions européennes. Ce qui est paradoxal car nous ne valorisons pas sur le marché les efforts issus de notre politique commune de la pêche et de fait par nos producteurs et pêcheurs. On est bien loin d'une souveraineté alimentaire européenne, on importe 70 % des produits de la mer. S'il y a une révision de la PCP, il faudra évidemment inclure celle de l'OCM dans un calendrier raisonnable et effectif et inclure aussi des clauses miroirs sur les produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture dans tous nos accords de libre-échange.
Merci.
France Jamet
Merci Madame la Présidente. Oui, je crois qu'on est d'accord là-dessus, la volonté d'édicter des normes communes de commercialisation était dès le départ finalement on va dire une fausse bonne idée et pour cause elle ne garantit finalement aucunement que les produits de la mer des pays tiers soient pêchés par des navires soumis aux mêmes normes que les nôtres. Il aurait fallu aller plus loin en assumant une politique protectionniste, excusez-moi du mot, édictant que les produits issus de pays tiers pêchés par des navires non européens qui ne respectent pas exactement les mêmes normes que nous ne puissent pas entrer sur notre marché. Il aurait aussi fallu veiller réellement à leur application ce qui n'est pas le cas. Cela aurait permis à nos navires de rester compétitifs et donc de réduire notre dépendance on l'a dit vis-à-vis de pays tiers pour combler nos besoins.
Mais cela aurait aussi permis à nos pêcheurs d'investir dans la modernisation et la sécurisation de la flotte. Sur l'information au consommateur là aussi le règlement ne va pas assez loin. Certaines informations facultatives comme le port de débarquement devraient être obligatoires tout comme les informations nutritionnelles des produits. Ce règlement enfin qui se voulait comme un des piliers de la politique commune de la pêche devait permettre l'assurance de règles équitables en plus d'une information concrète et complète pour éclairer le consommateur pour qu'il puisse choisir en toute connaissance de cause. Eh bien ce règlement ne remplit pas ses objectifs.
Tout comme la PCP effectivement il faut opérer dès maintenant une refonte complète du règlement afin de rompre avec l'opacité et la politique libre-échangiste promue par l'Union européenne depuis des décennies qui met en péril notre souveraineté alimentaire. Je crois Madame la Présidente que nous devons et nous pouvons y travailler ensemble, vous l'avez souvent lancé ce message, nous devons le faire ici Madame la Présidente vous l'avez dit en introduction nous n'avons finalement que quelques mois, la filière est en grande difficulté. Je pense qu'il faut en finir enfin avec les grandes déclarations et les discours, il faut agir parce que les pêcheurs comptent sur nous.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel voorzitter. Nu wij spreken over de gemeenschappelijke marktordening zou ik een vraag willen stellen over artikel 41 van de marktordening. Dat artikel 41 geeft producentenorganisaties in beperkte mate ruimte om af te wijken van de mededingingsregels. Echter die afwijkingsmogelijkheden zijn veel beperkter dan de afwijkingsmogelijkheden die we bijvoorbeeld kennen in de marktordening voor landbouwproducten. Vanuit de visserijsector zijn we al verschillende keren benaderd met de vraag kunnen we dat niet gelijktrekken en kunnen die afwijkingsmogelijkheden voor de visserij niet worden gestroomlijnd met die we al kennen voor de landbouwsector.
Waarom vragen wij dat? Wij vragen dat omdat er in toenemende mate behoefte is, ook in de visserijsector, om onderling duurzaamheidsafspraken te maken. Daar zijn bindende afspraken voor nodig. Er zijn prijsafspraken voor nodig, ook in de keten. En het huidige artikel 41 is op dat punt gewoon te beperkt.
Om het even concreet te maken: wij hebben bijvoorbeeld te maken met de garnalensector, die werken met het MSC-keurmerk. Dat betekent dat ze extra eisen natuurlijk stellen aan de visserijsector. Echter, de extra kosten die daarmee gemoeid zijn, die worden onvoldoende nog als het ware betaald en vergoed vanuit de markt. En daarom zijn die bindende afspraken nodig. En daarvoor zou wat ons betreft echt artikel 41 aangepast moeten worden, met name dus om die duurzaamheidsafspraken waar de sector mee aan de slag wil, verder te stimuleren.
Dus daarom mijn vraag aan de Commissie, heel concreet: is de Commissie ook bereid om te kijken naar dat artikel 41? Wordt dat wellicht ook meegenomen in de visie voor 2040? Met andere woorden: kan de Commissie misschien een update geven en is de Commissie misschien ook in overleg met de sector hierover en met andere stakeholders? Dank u wel.
Asger Christensen
Tak for det. Vi har meget høje krav i Europa til vores egne fisk, både når det gælder bæredygtighed, når det gælder kontrol, når det gælder sporbarhed. Vi skal også sikre, at de samme krav afspejler sig i den information, forbrugerne får i de importerede produkter. Mit spørgsmål til Kommissionen er derfor: Forbrugerne har i dag ikke en reel mulighed for at se forskellen på de europæiske fisk og de importerede produkter, når de står nede i køledisken. Og ser Kommissionen et behov for at styrke oprindelsesmærkningen, sådan at vi sikrer en fair konkurrence, og sådan at vi har en reel forbrugeroplysning?
Tak.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we also believe that it's very unfair and double standard that for prepared and preserved products, there's no requirement at all for traceability and knowing what is actually in the can, and also everything that is consumed at restaurants are also excluded. On the geographical area, of course for consumers it's not understandable if it says FAO 27, which is basically what it says on everything in Europe, which is the Northeast Atlantic. So if we want to be more transparent and really allow for consumers to choose what is sustainably caught or locally fished, etc., I would like to hear from the Commission why we don't, why we couldn't use the ICES basis for stock assessments, the division of the sea according to that would be more information for the consumer. Now, lastly, on simplification.
Now, we have the new control regulation that was revised a few years ago. Here, more information about the catch is mandatory along the whole supply chain in its Article 58.
So there's no reason, you know, to argue that there would be more bureaucratic, more kind of administrative burden for the producers to put that information also on the end product in on the shelf in the supermarket because that information is already available. So I think, yeah, I'd like to ask the Commission if you don't think that this is really a very simple thing to do to match what is already mandatory under the control regulations, Article 58, and put it in Article 35. Thank you.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Um, just to echo what MEP Ilcic said, it's actually good to hear this being discussed at the committee. It's regularly poured over at the Agriculture Committee, fighting for the rights of farmers to get a fair price, whether that be for beef or whether that be for dairy. And in particular, that you go out and you work, whether you're an MEP, whether you're a hairdresser, whether you're a mechanic, or whether you're a fisher, at the end of the day, you get a price for your product that makes it possible for you to live. But I hear the word competitiveness, and I think it's, it's important to be competitiveness, but who pays the price for competitiveness? Like, the one area we can't go near with competitiveness is the idea that you would expect fishers in Europe to live in an economy where it's very, very expensive to live, to compete with people who live in an economy which is not quite so expensive to live in.
And I just question where competitiveness brings us, at what, at like, we've probably never been more competitive, have we? We've never been more efficient. We've never had better machinery, better technology. I don't see fishers doing better out of being competitiveness, same with farming. Also, when it comes to transparency for consumers so they can make a decision, I, I think that's so important.
And in particular, that they can make a decision, are they buying sustainably sourced fish, or are they actually buying something that was illegally fished by a state from outside the EU? And that, to me, it's important, talking about that, that we seriously look at enforcing this regulation. We bumped it up so that we could go after countries that were taking the proverbial and not having to follow the same rules as us. But what's happening? I understand it might have been politically sensitive, but we had a decision in the last week where a country made a decision they were as well off outside the EU because, do you know what, you can do whatever you want.
Francisco José Millán Mon
Gracias, presidenta. Gracias también al representante de la Comisión por su exposición. Un tanto limitada iba a decir, porque poco concluyente. No tengo claro si van están pensando o no en llevar a cabo un tipo de una propuesta de la reforma del reglamento de la OCM. Me pareció que no era concluyente en su en su intervención a este respecto.
Supongo que lo están estudiando todavía, es la impresión que yo saco. También de una respuesta que me dio a una pregunta por escrito hace unos meses sobre las prioridades de la Comisión, intuía eso, que dejaban ver que estaban viéndolo y que no tenían decidida la línea de actuación. Pero de cara a una eventual o una futura hipotética reforma de la OCM, efectivamente se ha hablado del etiquetado aquí en primer lugar.
Yo creo que, en fin, la Comisión de esta Comisión de Pesca del Parlamento en varias ocasiones se ha inclinado sobre la necesidad de mejorar la información al consumidor, reforzar la transparencia en el etiquetado. Es cierto que si el etiquetado es más transparente puede poner en valor mejor la producción europea, reforzar la posición de los productores europeos en el mercado. Pero también creo que es importante garantizar que estas nuevas obligaciones no se traduzcan en requisitos excesivamente complejos o costosos para la industria conservera y transformadora. Por cierto, recuerdo, yo creo que ya se ha dicho antes, que el nuevo reglamento de control ya exige, ya impone una serie de obligaciones en materia de trazabilidad. Ya sé que ahora estamos hablando de otra cosa que es el etiquetado, pero ambos no son temas muy, muy separados.
Hay que buscar fórmulas equilibradas sobre esas necesidades de transparencia y que no tengan excesivo coste para la industria y para no vaya a ser que pierda competitividad. Por tanto, yo creo que estas medidas nuevas en todo caso deberían ir precedidas de los correspondientes estudios de impacto y también conseguir que haya un level playing field y que al final también se hagan estas exigencias a los productos importados de terceros países. Segundo aspecto: ese etiquetado adecuado yo creo que sería necesario para combatir el fraude alimentario. Creo que ya se dijo antes. Existen prácticas desleales como el llamado pescado vegetal que pueden provocar confusión o inducir al engaño al consumidor en el momento de la compra.
En julio del año pasado se nos presentó un estudio sobre este tema. Se señalaba una evidente laguna regulatoria en relación con el etiquetado de estos productos. El reglamento de la OCM fue aprobado en una época en la que este tipo de problemas no existían y ahora hay una expansión de los sustitutos vegetales de productos del mar. Por eso sí me parece indispensable que si se cambia la norma se introduzca esta nueva regulación. Me parece que esta es la línea.
El Tribunal de Cuentas también lo señaló: la necesidad de un marco regulatorio. Y el propio Consejo se pronunció al respecto. Hace en junio del pasado año doce Estados miembros instaron a la Comisión a presentar una propuesta legislativa para proteger los nombres de alimentos de origen animal, incluidos los productos pesqueros. Por tanto, esa eventual reforma del reglamento de la OCM tendría que abordar, a mi juicio, esta problemática de fraude en el etiquetado. Y si existe una reforma de la OCM agrícola, pues tengamos en cuenta eso.
Si se ha protegido las denominaciones como solomillo, muslo, pechuga, también se deben proteger denominaciones vinculadas al pescado y productos pesqueros. Termino. Hay un aspecto que en mi tierra y en mi país, en España y en Galicia en particular, preocupa: el reconocimiento de las cofradías de pescadores y su equiparación con las organizaciones de productores. Este Parlamento ya se pronunció en diversas ocasiones: en abril del 21, en enero del 23. ¿Qué queremos?
Que el Parlamento, y así lo debiera hacer también la Comisión, que en la nueva regulación de una eventual OCM nueva, las cofradías deben ser reconocidas y poder optar a recibir ayuda financiera europea en pie de igualdad con las organizaciones de productores. Ahí tenemos un problema porque yo creo que en España dicen que es un tema de la Unión Europea, en la Unión Europea dicen que es un tema de la legislación española. Me encantaría que la Comisión y el Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca trabajaran de forma conjunta para no perjudicar y para poder de una vez resolver este problema en favor de las cofradías. Gracias.
Nora Junco García
Muchas gracias, presidente. Pues comparto las opiniones del señor Millán Mon sobre el etiquetado de los productos vegetales y que estén en el mismo lineal del resto de productos del mar. Y bueno, pues en definitiva nosotros exigimos a los pescadores europeos importantes esfuerzos económicos para garantizar la sostenibilidad, la trazabilidad y la seguridad alimentaria. Y sin embargo, cuando el pescado llega al mercado, pues su valor añadido muchas veces queda diluido en etiquetas genéricas mientras se compite con productos importados que no siempre han sido obtenidos con las mismas exigencias.
Indicar simplemente la extensa zona FAO no permite al consumidor saber si está comprando un pescado capturado con una embarcación española o europea. Y esa falta de información es todavía mayor en los productos transformados, las conservas y la restauración. La trazabilidad pues no debe terminar en un almacén o en el distribuidor, tiene que llegar hasta el plato del consumidor. Entonces mi pregunta es que si tiene prevista la Comisión exigir una identificación más precisa del origen, incluido el país o el pabellón de la flota, y extender las obligaciones de información a los productos transformados y al canal Horeca para garantizar estas importaciones y que informen claramente cuando no hayan sido producidas bajo los estándares equivalentes a los exigidos por los pescadores para los pescadores europeos. Y luego tengo otra pregunta: ¿cuántas inspecciones comparables se han realizado en cada Estado miembro, qué porcentaje de incumplimiento se ha detectado en pescaderías, supermercados y restauración y cuándo publicará la Comisión estos datos de manera armonizada?
Gracias.
Ana Miranda Paz
Gracias, presidenta. Bueno, quisiera en primer lugar decirle a la Comisión Europea que valoramos muy positivamente que haya una reforma de la OCM. Se está esperando desde hace muchos años. Además, en la reforma del año 2013, en la que tuve ocasión de participar con varias enmiendas en el año 2012, en mi primer mandato, tuve la ocasión de presentar enmiendas de protección al sector del mejillón y en concreto de protección a la trazabilidad. Unas enmiendas que desgraciadamente no pasaron, pero que volveríamos a introducir ya que la indefensión en la que se siente el sector del mejillón gallego de mi país, pesquera, nación pesquera y productora de mejillón por excelencia, frente a las importaciones es muy grande.
En concreto frente a las importaciones del mejillón de Chile que debido a esa falta de transparencia en el etiquetado y debido a la falta de información no pone de dónde viene. Simplemente pone que fue transformado en Galicia, pero no pone que viene de Chile. Y por lo tanto, el consumidor y la consumidora tienen que saber. El año pasado le pregunté a la Comisión Europea después de la visita de los representantes de la organización de productores de mejillón de Galicia, de Opmega, precisamente sobre la situación de indefensión. Porque en mi país hay 3.337 bateas en cinco rías con 12.000 trabajadores dependientes de este sector y una producción de 160 millones de euros de beneficio.
Pero la desgracia es que con la entrada en vigor del acuerdo Unión Europea-Chile en el marco de la entrada sin aranceles del mejillón y además con esta falta de regulación como la propia Comisión reconoce diciendo que hay una falta de productos que no están incluidos en estas obligaciones y uno de ellos es el mejillón, quien es el más afectado es el mejillón gallego, o mexillón galego. Esa competencia desleal del acuerdo de Chile con la entrada de importaciones libres de aranceles de forma que se favorece la importación de ese mejillón hace que en Europa el mejillón de Galicia esté en una capacidad inferior. Pasaron de vender en el año 2024 100.000 toneladas a 50.000. Y eso tiene una implicación en la afectación al empleo. Y por eso valoramos positivamente una reforma de la OCM, la que se cubran las dificultades e información técnica al consumidor.
Valoramos que se incluya en las nuevas obligaciones a este producto importantísimo para el sector en muchos países y para la creación de empleo y también que haya realmente que desaparezca ese miedo a la información y la transparencia. ¿No hablamos en otras comisiones que necesitamos normas y reglas claras de información? Entonces no tengamos dobles estándares dependiendo para el sector extractivo no, pero para el sector de la conserva sí. Y yo como gallega siempre defenderé a todos los sectores incluido la industria conservera, pero también la industria conservera tiene que hacer una adaptación a que esas normas de información tienen que ser obligatorias. Gracias.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Muchas gracias. A mí también me gustaría aportar a esta cuestión tan importante. De acuerdo absolutamente con la reforma de la OCM. Yo creo que aquí todas las informaciones y opiniones que se han dado son muy válidas. Pero yo creo que Europa debe de la reforma facilitar al consumidor la información para distinguir claramente el valor añadido de nuestros productos pesqueros.
Eso tiene que quedar claro. Hay que ser ambicioso y avanzar en un etiquetado europeo común, sencillo, reconocible y que permita identificar y poner en valor los productos de la pesca y acuicultura europeos. Un distintivo que claramente transmita que las proteínas azules producidas en Europa son sinónimo de calidad, seguridad, sostenibilidad, trazabilidad y estándares sociales. Y desde luego un origen europeo debe convertirse en un elemento de confianza para el consumidor y la competitividad para nuestros pescadores. Esto no significa que haya más carga administrativa.
Esto tiene que tener una simplificación normativa claramente para ser simplificado porque nos ofrece la posibilidad de la digitalización que se está poniendo a merced en estos momentos. Y además la transparencia sobre el origen es una cuestión de competencia leal. Y por tanto estamos muy de acuerdo con la reforma, con todos esos elementos y que sea un elemento más que valore que es una cuestión claramente de competencia leal. Nuestros pescadores y consumidores y acuicultores compiten con productos procedentes de terceros países que no están sujetos a estándares equivalentes y lo tiene que conocer el consumidor y diferenciar el producto europeo y recompensar económicamente sus mayores estándares. Muchas gracias.
Y ahora sí le doy la palabra de nuevo al jefe de la unidad de la DG MARE, el señor Sven Langedijk. Gracias.
Sven Langedijk
Thank you, Chair, and and thank you to all members for this very rich exchange and the wide variety of of comments. I'll try to address the questions that were raised, starting maybe with the there were several members asking for whether we were whether Commission was now preparing for a reform of the of the CMO. I think that's that's one step too early. The Commission has not decided that. As the we have seen in the evaluation that overall the CMO functioned rather well.
There were some issues that required attention and you have raised these as well and we take that that back as well. We now need to further examine what options there are, look at the cost and benefits and also take into account what what I hear several members raise as well, including Mr. Millán Mon, the issue of of the balance and and the costs. So we need to look at what is needed, how how can we achieve our policy objectives in the best possible way, at the least burdensome way while maintaining the high consumer and sustainability standards. Now, there were many many, many questions. Let me see how to how to structure that further.
Many good questions as well. I'll start with I heard I think from five or six members the call for will the Commission and should the Commission introduce the the should the flag state become mandatory now? That was the the most heard proposal.
To be clear the flag state can already be provided voluntarily but the evaluation that we had also identifies or or makes clear that there's consumer interest in this information. And the question is also whether it's the most useful or strongest additional origin indicator that we can include. Would it provide sufficient information would it always be unambiguous and would it help consumers a lot to to make their their decisions. So this needs to be assessed together with other possible improvements to origin information. Then several members including Mr. Løven and I need to look at my notes there were at least three other members as well who asked about the the prepared and preserved products.
Should we extend the mandatory consumer information to preserved and prepared products. When we introduced or when we proposed the current CMO in 2011 there was this extension in the in the proposal that was at the time removed by the co-legislators during the negotiations. Indeed it it comes up as the again now as the consumption of prepared and preserved products has increased so it has become more important. So the share not covered by the CMO specific requirements has has increased. And also the the traceability requirements and and have also changed and we are now in a process of extending the or having more robust traceability requirements also for processed products which is planned to enter into force in 2029.
So also timing here needs to be considered this is a crucial prerequisite for such measures. Similarly the issue was raised of extension to the Horeca sector. So there again the consumer may have an interest just as for fresh products on the the type of information that can make him help him or her help make the choices. But that said there are other practicalities there that significantly differ from say packaged retail or fishmongers. Restaurant dishes change daily often combine several species and origins and the Horeca sector is very large very dispersed with a very large number of very small restaurants.
Again there we should very carefully also look at the balance between the additional value and the extent to which it helps the consumers and the burden that we pose including on on smaller operators throughout the the supply chain.
Then the issue of competitiveness, productivity, and we hear that point as well, Mr. Flanagan, on the what it does is of course there's always the balance between the affordability for the consumers, there's the profitability and livelihood of the fishers, there's the sustainability considerations, the social standards, and in all of this the right balance needs to be struck. And for that it's good that we hear from your side the different views and how to make the right balance, get the right balance. The fact is that if you enhance competitiveness or productivity, you may get more to give away, either to affordability or to profitability and livelihood. So there's some trade-offs, trade-offs and some wins that can be made there. Mr. Milan Man and Miss Lven as well talked about the simplification aspects, no more careful about complexity for the fishers.
We need to really see maybe also where there's increase in technology that may make things feasible or achievable that were not achievable in the past, but still we know that there is too high a burden and a large increase in burden for fishers and other operators in the supply chain that we want to reduce. So again, that balance needs to be found. Yeah, of course Mr. Rausen raised the issue of the difference of the Agri agriculture CMO, Common Market Organization, and the Fisheries Common Market Organization, and there is indeed a difference between the two. The agriculture contains a dedicated provision for sustainability agreements. The fishery CMO relies on exemptions from competition rules for agreements and practices of producer organizations more broadly.
It is not necessarily a legal gap because sustainability cooperation in fisheries and aquaculture may already be possible under the CMO Article 41. And we are in touch with the sector. Mr. Rausen pointed us to issues that were raised by the shrimp fishers. We're engaging with them, also seeing what is possible within the current rules, and we try to understand and see where the issue is. It may not help to mirror the agriculture CMO to solve that issue, but we're looking into that and working further with the fishers on this.
I think I covered already many issues. Maybe there were some issues raised further on the unfair competition. And then of course the consumer information is an aspect that may help here, but we work on a broad set of instruments and these also need to be considered together here.
The IUU framework, the catch system, the international fisheries policy, and we're looking at ways to ensure legality and promote the higher standards beyond our waters. I'm trying to see whether there are things that I missed here. I take back that there were some specific points raised around the mussels, for instance. We consider all these issues together. We will consider them further as we look into options to strengthen the CMO.
We do consider here, we also need to consider that the evaluation of the CMO and the external study that we had overall was rather positive on the functioning of the CMO and pointed to specific issues. So when we look at it, we need to be targeted. It's important to hear these concerns of the sector and make the right, consider the right trade-offs there. So I think I stop here. Thank you very much.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Merci Monsieur Langedijk. Est-ce que certains collègues veulent insister sur un point ? Non. Juste je vous ai entendu au début de votre présentation dire que la refonte de l'OCM finalement c'était pas de la responsabilité de la Commission. Donc je suppose que c'est de la responsabilité du colégislateur.
Mais je vois que vous avez quand même commencé à travailler à quelques hypothèses. Donc je pense qu'on n'a pas épuisé le sujet. Et moi j'insiste vraiment pour dire comme en agriculture que cette question de l'OCM elle est stratégique pour le monde de la pêche. S'il n'y a pas d'autres questions donc je voudrais vous remercier, clore ce point. Et rassurez-vous hein, le point numéro huit c'est chers collègues l'ordre du jour du comité pêche est épuisé.
Avez-vous quelque chose à ajouter ? Si la réponse est non, vous êtes libérés. Bonne soirée à tous et bonne reprise de nos travaux. Bonne rentrée des classes.