Recovery of cod stocks (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Busk, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 as regards the recovery of cod stocks and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - C6-0183/2008 -
Niels Busk
rapporteur. - (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission has presented a good, constructive proposal for amending the existing recovery plan for cod in, for example, the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat. Despite the existence of the present recovery plan, far more cod are continuing to be caught than are generated through reproduction. The Celtic Sea has been included in the recovery plan because new evaluations indicate that cod stocks are also being overexploited there and are in a poor state.
The object of these amendments is to ensure the recovery of cod stocks within the next five to ten years. This objective is intended to be achieved by reducing fishing mortality by between 10% and 25%, depending on the state of the stock. This is to be supplemented by regulation of the fishing effort as well as provisions relating to monitoring and control. The objectives are to be revised in order to obtain the highest sustainable yield even if oceanic conditions change as a result of global warming. The effort management system is to be simplified. It has progressively become so complex that a new system is needed, based on effort ceilings to be managed by Member States, which will have greater flexibility and therefore achieve more efficient implementation.
The plan is to be adapted to different levels of recovery and it therefore incorporates a modular strategy where the adjustment of fishing mortality is a function of the level of recovery achieved. Clear rules are introduced that are applied when scientists cannot provide precise estimates of stock status. There is a need to reduce discards by introducing new mechanisms to encourage fishermen to engage in cod-avoidance programmes. Overall, the Commission wishes to amend the existing cod recovery plan in order to make it more complete, updated to recent developments, simpler, more efficient and easier to implement, monitor and control.
TACs: New rules are being introduced to establish the total allowable catches, where the size of the stocks is measured in relation to either the minimum quantity or the target quantity. When setting the TAC, the Council is also to deduct a quantity of cod corresponding to the size of the expected discard, calculated on the basis of the total amount of cod caught. Other factors contributing to fishing mortality will also result in a revolution in the total cod caught when the TAC is established.
Every three years the Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries will evaluate the recovery of the cod stocks. If the trends in the stocks do not prove satisfactory, the Council shall set a lower TAC than that specified in the aforementioned rules, together with a lower fishing effort.
As rapporteur, I have tabled a number of amendments to the Commission's proposal, and my colleagues have also tabled some amendments. The most important amendment is to change the reference years from 2005-2007 to 2004-2006, as the data for 2007 are so new that we cannot be certain of them, and it is therefore better to use the data that we are sure of.
Account is taken of the fact that cod stocks at a particular point in time are being rebuilt, which is why we cannot simply make reductions, but rather changes are needed. The system of transferring from one type of gear to another is made more flexible so that it is possible to respond to external circumstances, such as rising fuel prices, which, even after the fall over the last few weeks, are at a particularly high level. The Regional Advisory Councils are to be involved as much as possible. Both fishermen and Member States are to be encouraged to introduce measures to reduce fishing mortality and discards.
Finally, I would like to thank the French Presidency and the Commission for their particularly constructive cooperation.
Joe Borg
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Committee on Fisheries and especially its rapporteur Mr Busk for his thorough and well-considered report.
I am pleased that Parliament shares the Commission's views on cod recovery. Fishing mortality is too high. The abundance of cod is too low. Even though in some areas there are more young fish in the sea than in past years, this is still an opportunity rather than a recovery.
I am also pleased that Parliament agrees on the need for recruiting the Celtic Sea as well as on the need for important cuts in fishing mortality through TAC and effort reductions. I agree with many of Parliament's proposed amendments, but I cannot agree directly with Parliament's texts. This is only because similar legal texts already exist or are being developed in consultation with Member States, and I do not want to pre-empt the results of technical discussions being undertaken.
Now to specifics. I accept your Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 and 16. On Amendment 2, I agree with the principle, but the powers of the Commission and Council are already established in the EC Treaty, and the role of the regional advisory councils is set out in Article 31 of the basic regulation.
On Amendment 3 regarding discard reduction, I have been working on a separate initiative. You will be aware of the Commission's communication of spring 2007 concerning discarding. This will shortly be followed up with a proposal for a regulation.
On Amendment 7, I accept that, for stocks in very high-risk situations, a limit of 15% on TAC increases should apply. But Council should keep the option of a decrease that is larger than 15%.
On Amendment 8, I accept the inclusion of a reference to seal mortality as an example, and of considerations of climate change on cod when a review of the plan is made.
On Amendment 10, the chapter rightly refers to a limitation of fishing effort. Reference to determination would imply that fishing effort would only be measured, not managed. Therefore I cannot accept this amendment.
On Amendment 11, I can reconsider the base line for the calculation of kilowatt days. However, Member States need to be involved in this discussion.
On Amendment 12, the text of the proposed Article 8a, paragraph 3, was indeed confusing, and we will be redrafting it to make it clearer.
On Amendment 15, the proposal concerning ring-fencing of capacity was too restrictive and could prevent reorganisation of the activities of fishing fleets. I am still discussing with Member States how to provide a suitable degree of flexibility while still ensuring that the fishing effort does not increase. Therefore, my preference is to improve the existing text rather than delete it.
On Amendment 17, I can accept the principle of effort transfers, subject to a correction factor reflecting the importance of cod catches in different sectors. But the subject is complicated and needs to be looked into further.
On Amendment 18, for legal reasons I cannot accept the deletion of the reference to the decision-making procedure. The procedure referred to is that required by the EC Treaty.
I thank you for your attention and for you constructive contributions on this file.
Cornelis Visser
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Mr President, this evening, we are discussing the Busk report on the Commission proposals for a quicker recovery of cod stocks in European waters. I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Busk, on his report.
Cod is an important fish species for the EU. While in the past it used to be part of people's staple diet, and cod was eaten as a replacement for more expensive meat, these days cod is a luxury fish species that is only available at high cost. Ever since the late 80s and the early 90s, the supply of cod has been dropping steadily. Apart from all kinds of natural causes, like the North Sea warming up and the virtual absence of hard winters, this is also attributable to intensive cod fishing. It is particularly this cause which the Commission would like to address with the new cod recovery plan.
I can identify with the Commission's wish to simplify the regulations that aim to restrict cod fishing. The current regulation is too complex and leads to many differences in interpretation among both fishermen and inspectors. Simplification would at least address this problem. It is necessary, also on behalf of Dutch fishing, for us at European level to maintain the recovery of cod stocks.
The proposed measures have needed time to take effect. For more than 18 months, cod stocks in the North Sea have been enjoying a remarkable recovery. Parliament - myself included - would like to involve the fishing industry and regional advisory councils more in measures to be taken. This will improve support within the industry. The new rules, as far as I can see, are a step in the right direction. The Member States can regulate cod fishing more effectively, while the fishermen know far better what is, and is not, allowed.
It will not be evident until four to six years down the line whether the measures we are now taking are effective. I would therefore urge the Commissioner to take his time in assessing the measures taken, before producing new measures. If not, fishermen will face an unworkable situation
Ole Christensen
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DA) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Busk, for his constructive cooperation in connection with preparing this report. I think we have achieved a satisfactory result. As a result of our amendments, the system will be simpler, more flexible, more efficient and less bureaucratic. In the revision of the Commission's proposal we claim, for example, that the success of the cod recovery plan is to a large degree dependent on not landing fish caught through illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Monitoring and control are important instruments to ensure the enforcement of the fishing regulations. Moreover, the fishing industry and the relevant Regional Advisory Councils in the Member States should be more involved in the evaluation and decision-making process so that account is taken of special regional characteristics and needs in the future development and extension of the management mechanisms. Effective implementation of the recovery plan requires the involvement of all parties concerned to ensure legitimacy and compliance with the regulations at regional level. In the report we also emphasise the fact that the recovery plan will have important consequences for the fishing industry as well as the economic and social development of local communities, and this is why the Commission should reconsider the fishing effort system once cod stocks have significantly improved.
Jim Allister
Mr President, the constant refrain of the Commission - and, indeed, of this report - is ever-declining cod stocks. Yet this year, within the EU, we will dump EUR 50 million worth of dead cod back into the sea. Why? Because of our crazy policy on discards. The TACs have been driven so low that massive discards are being produced. Probably one discard for every cod retained. Year on year, we drive down TACs and push up the discards as a result, and so perpetuate this self-defeating eco-crazy policy.
Whether a cod is retained or discarded, it reduces the biomass. Increase the TACs, and I believe you will correspondingly reduce the discards and swell the food supply, without depleting the biomass more than we do at present through discards. That, I believe, is the way to go, along with cod avoidance plans, and then some sense might come to this policy.
Struan Stevenson
Mr President, I have to commend my good friend Niels Busk for his brave attempt at yet another cod recovery plan. Ever since I was elected in 1999, we have had a cod recovery plan every year.
Every cod recovery plan introduces even tougher regulations and even tougher draconian measures. Because we are dealing with a mixed fishery where the cod is caught together with prawns, whiting and haddock, we have all these discard problems that we have just heard Jim Allister talking about. I am afraid that I feel in this case that Mr Busk is emulating his famous Danish forbear, King Canute, who was King of Denmark and England in the 10th century and famously sat on his throne at the seaside and ordered the tide not to come in. Of course, history records that he got very wet and narrowly avoided drowning. Trying to introduce a cod recovery plan - a management plan that will help cod recover - is, in fact, trying to defy nature in the same way. We know that climate change has caused the North Sea to warm up by one and a half degrees and the fighter plankton that the cod larvae feed on have moved hundreds of miles north, which is why most of the big mature cod that we buy in the shops anywhere in Europe comes from around Norway, the Faroes and Iceland. So until the North Sea cools down again, you are not going to see the cod recovering, and all the tough management plans that we want to introduce will not make any difference.
I am delighted, in that case, that I have heard the Commissioner this evening say that he accepts my amendment that will at least look at the impact of climate change on cod recovery, as well as looking at the impact on cod predation by seals. We now have 170 000 grey seals in the North Sea, each one eating two tons of fish a year - including a lot of cod - and previously it was not PC to speak about seals in any shape or form. So at least looking at the impact seals have on the cod population is, I think, a very important step this evening. I commend King Canute to the House and hope that his report is accepted.
Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski
(PL) Mr President, the Council regulation represents a further attempt to achieve a balance between the current state of knowledge concerning the actual state of resources and the natural desire to discharge the obligations relating to the stewardship and management of European fisheries. The rapporteur has clearly identified the new manifestation of this age-old dilemma. He has pointed to a clear contradiction between the noble intention of protecting resources and the actual possibilities of establishing their state.
On this occasion, the authors of the regulation agree as never before with the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries that there is still a lack of sufficiently reliable information to be passed to fishermen in the form of comprehensible opinions on the TAC. At the same time, however, the Union's institutions, doubtless not wishing to be seen as inactive, are recommending development of provisions ensuring consistent implementation of the TAC, even when, as stated, the data is known to be inadequate. Fishermen expecting verification of fishing effort perceive this approach as being unduly cautious and as inappropriate in terms of a rational fisheries policy. I have endeavoured to try and understand the peculiar methodology adopted by those in authority in this area. Nonetheless, I feel it incumbent upon me to caution the rapporteur regarding the social and economic consequences of a proliferation of limitations on catches, and of irritating and bureaucratic restrictions on the activities of fishermen. Increasingly, the latter are supporting scientists as regards establishing the true state of the marine biomass. Polish fishermen have joined the increasing criticism of the archaic data base that is too heavily based on estimates. Now is perhaps the time to take greater heed of fishermen's opinions, based on centuries of knowledge and an awareness that fishermen can only survive if they respect the interests of the marine environment.
Avril Doyle
Mr President, while any cod recovery plan would need first of all to incentivise those Member States and fishermen who contribute to a reduction in cod mortality, and also secondly to reduce by-catch and eliminate discards - eliminate, not reduce, discards - no cod recovery plan has any credibility unless it factors in the whole climate change point in relation to the cod feeding and breeding grounds, as so eloquently put on the record a few moments ago by my colleague, Mr Stevenson, and that must play a large part in any cod recovery plan if it is to have credibility in this day and age.
I agree that reducing by-catch through cod avoidance programmes is of paramount importance. However, we should refer to the need to reduce by-catch and eliminate discards. That is to say, the reduction of cod caught in the net (the by-catch), and not landed (the discard), is crucial. Without it, fishing is not sustainable ecologically or economically. While Ireland has proposed a pilot project for 2009 to reduce cod discards in our Nephrops fishery in part of the Celtic Sea, hopefully with incentives for fishermen and a major role for them in monitoring and control which will be key to successful enforcement of the project, I must however ask the Commissioner a question in the light of what our rapporteur referred to as 'new evaluations suggesting the Celtic Sea is over-exploited and so needs to be controlled', according to ICES a 2009 TAC for the Celtic Sea area was recommended which indicates that the stock is stronger there than in other areas covered by the recovery plan. Is or is not the Celtic Sea to be included in a recovery plan? Does it or does it not need to be? Who do we listen to on the scientific front?
Kathy Sinnott
Mr President, I would like to inform the Commissioner that cod was once one of the most common fish in Irish waters and on Irish tables. For my fishermen, fishing is more than a job, it is a way of life, a tradition, even a vocation. Many of my fishermen are doing mixed fishing, and for them, discards are more than a waste and a contradiction: they are an abomination.
We have to help equip fishermen to fish more selectively in order to protect the cod and, at the same time as we hopefully reduce discards, we must start using them and putting them to good purpose, land them and give them to hospitals. We must not only end the discard of cod and other fish, but we have to end the scandal of the discard of cod and other fish.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) I believe the amendments tabled by Mr Busk concerning the so-called cod stock recovery plan are vital for restoring stocks of this species to what they were years ago. Protection of cod stocks is the greatest challenge to which our common fisheries policy must rise. It should be remembered that, along with sprat and mackerel, cod is one of the species most commonly fished by the European Union's fishing fleets. At global level, cod is the second most popular species.
In addition to being a key catch, cod is also vital to the proper functioning of the ecosystem. Cod naturally controls the spread of algae, notably in the Baltic Sea. Together with climate change, the reduction of the stocks of this important species is therefore a significant factor in the changes affecting North Atlantic marine ecosystems.
Finally, I should like to present the stance of Polish fishermen, who have become the main victims of the mistaken and unfair cod fishing policy. As Members will be aware, initially, catch restrictions were imposed on vessels flying the Polish flag. These were followed by a ban on fishing for cod. Not only did this have a negative impact on the fishermen's livelihoods, but it also led to the emergence of the spectre of bankruptcy looming over the Polish processing industry. That is why, amongst the amendments tabled, particular emphasis should be placed on research. The latter will allow us to establish the actual state of cod stocks, which will in turn allow us to conduct a realistic fisheries policy. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Joe Borg
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the honourable Members for the interesting debate which demonstrates the commitment of Parliament to the recovery of cod.
Indeed, Parliament's report largely concurs with and supports the Commission proposal to make our current plan more flexible and effective and at the same time more comprehensive. As many of you have pointed out, cod has started to show some signs of improvement, and fishers will tell you that cod has returned to our seas.
However, it is a fact that this is attributable to one particular year class - the 2005 year class - now that the cod has matured to sizes whereby it is caught within our nets. We therefore need to be careful how to manage this, because if we reward this one particular year prematurely we will end up in a situation where the possible recovery of this stock will be lost. This has already happened twice in the last 15 years - once in the Irish Sea and once in the North Sea - where we took premature action rewarding a particular year class and ended up with a situation where we had to start again from scratch. It is therefore crucial that we act in a way whereby responsible management will tell us that we should do our utmost in order to reduce effort by various measures and various means, and at the same time see to it that discards of cod are reduced.
This can be done by means of results-based management which the cod recovery plan introduces, and I would encourage Member States to also work with us so that we will be able to have a cod recovery plan which will in time bring about a complete recovery of cod.
Having said that, I would like to say a word on discards in general because discards is not an issue which relates only to cod. Obviously we speak of cod because that is of particular relevance to the North Sea, but we have various other stocks of fish that are discarded, and this is a very sensitive issue around the European Union where public opinion is mounting in a very negative way. I am determined to tackle it, and I intend to revisit the whole issue because so far progress has been very slow. I think that we need to look at the picture in a much more general way so that we immediately begin with significant measures to curb discarding, and later on I will come back to you with proposals as to how we can effectively curb discarding in the North Sea. We are also discussing this with partners like Norway to see how we can take effective measures to reduce cod fishery effort, but at the same time introduce measures to reduce cod discards in particular, as well as tackling the problem of discards of other fish stocks.
Concerning the Celtic Sea, to which Mrs Doyle made reference, it is true that ICES says that the state of the stock is somewhat better than in the other seas. Having said that, however, they still maintain that the stock is in bad shape and needs to be recovered, which is why we have included it as part of the new cod recovery plan. It is nonetheless still in very bad shape. The fact that a TAC is set does not mean that the stock is in good shape because most of our fisheries are regarded as being fished above sustainable levels, and you set TACs which would be on a diminishing scale. When it is really bad then it would be a zero TAC. In the case of the Celtic Sea, the situation is somewhat better but still the state of this stock is far from good.
Concerning the point made on cod in the Baltic Sea, although this is not part of this cod recovery plan we did introduce a cod recovery plan in the Baltic Sea in 2007. This year, on the basis of ICES advice and probably not so much a result of the cod recovery plan itself but of the significant efforts made by Poland and by Polish fishers, the very bad situation for eastern cod has improved but the situation for western cod in the western Baltic has got worse. We will therefore have to take tougher measures for western Baltic cod, but can maybe take somewhat less tough measures for eastern cod.
Niels Busk
rapporteur. - (DA) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and my fellow Members for their enormous effort and extremely constructive amendments, which were absolutely necessary to make this recovery plan as complete as possible.
I would like to point out that it is now extremely important for the recovery plan to succeed. We owe it to the fishermen, but it is also correct, as has been mentioned here this evening, that we have talked about the recovery of cod and other species as well. We have talked about it for the last ten years without achieving the objective. It is therefore important that we achieve it now.)
I would like to say something about illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Of course, we do not know the extent of this, but I do not doubt that it has had extremely negative consequences for the recovery plans that we have implemented in recent years. It is a disgrace where fish stocks are concerned and a disgrace to the fishing industry and to society as a whole, and the European Parliament has drawn attention to this time and time again. Much better and more effective control needs to be introduced so that we can put a stop to illegal fishing. I would also like to mention that we must also include and measure the amount of fish that seals, cormorants and other predatory birds and fish are taking, is of course an area where there is in fact no-one taking account of what the quotas are, as the situation is of course almost the same as it is where unreported fishing is concerned.
The matter of discards is another issue that we have talked about for ten years. Discards naturally have unavoidable consequences for the quota policy but, just as importantly, we are discarding perfectly edible fish. Commissioner, I am, of course, happy that you have this evening said that you have a plan in place, but it is totally unsatisfactory that we have talked about this matter for ten years without achieving a single objective. This is a sad state of affairs, and we must do something about it, otherwise this recovery plan will be doomed to failure too.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Bogdan Golik
It is entirely reasonable for the European Commission and the governments of the Member States to be concerned about the critical state of cod stocks in the European Union's seas. I am concerned, however, that when it comes to their legislative proposals and decisions, the European Union's institutions are basing themselves on research undertaken by various research institutes financed by the European Commission. Research by independent scientists is rarely referred to.
There is also controversy concerning Council regulations (EC) No 812/2004 and No 2187/2005 introducing a ban on the use of drift nets in the EU. At a meeting with DG MARE I organised a month ago, it became evident that the European Commission is determined to avoid all questions put to it on this matter. It is failing to provide specific answers and is not meeting its obligations pursuant to the provisions of the aforementioned regulations concerning research to confirm the appropriateness of implementing bans.
Where cod is concerned, there is, for example, a lack of detailed statistics concerning catches from vessels less than 8 metres in length. No comparison has been made either of the quantities of processed fish products as compared to the size of the catches declared in individual Member States of the Union. The institutions have failed to provide specific information and plans. In addition, undue generalisation in research has contributed to heightening the controversy.
In view of its social and economic base, fishing is increasingly becoming a motive for demonstrations and protests by fishermen in Poland amongst other countries. Many families are being deprived of their livelihood through cuts in fishing quotas and the ban on the use of drifts nets, for example.


20. Lisbon Strategy (vote)
Before the vote on Amendment 28 (concerns the vote on Amendment 27):
Pervenche Berès
(FR) Madam President, I may be mistaken but I think that you have held a vote on Amendment 27 which, in reality, was a technical amendment that simply asked for paragraph 47 to be moved. On the other hand, there is a request for a separate roll-call vote on the original text.
I therefore believe that we have agreed to move paragraph 47, and we now need a two-part roll-call vote on paragraph 47 itself.
President
Let us clarify matters: there was no objection to paragraph 47 being inserted after paragraph 49. We then voted on Amendment 27, which has been adopted. We could not therefore vote on paragraph 47, as we have voted on Amendment 27. There is therefore no problem.


2. The escalation of violence in Mexico
President
The next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on the escalation of violence in Mexico.
Ramón Jáuregui Atondo
author. - (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by saying that Mexico is a great democracy that has progressed steadily over the last 20 years. It is a friend of the European Union and we share a Strategic Partnership Agreement. I would also like to say that Mexico is currently waging a very difficult war against organised drug trafficking.
Today in the European Parliament, however, we are talking about Mexico in the context of human rights, because there has been and continues to be a marked increase in violence, which affects Mexican people in particular, and because there have been repeated, serious complaints about human rights violations.
The resolution that the major political groups are going to adopt here today is based on respect and consensus; of course, it recognises the situation I have just described and urges Mexico to continue on the path towards rule of law and full democracy.
However, it also makes four important requests: it urges Mexico to ensure the right to a free press, because there have been attacks on journalists; to guarantee protection for the organisations that defend human rights, because those groups have been attacked and threatened; to guarantee protection for women who suffer violence, because many women have been murdered; and to avoid impunity and abuses of power by their police forces. This is what Parliament has asked of Mexico, in the spirit of friendship based on a favourable relationship with Mexico.
Renate Weber
author. - (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this week we are celebrating International Women's Day. In this Parliament, we have seen a great many posters in all the languages of the European Union, saying that we can put a stop to violence against women. Today we are talking about violence in Mexico, and I think it is right that we should recognise that Mexican women, both indigenous and non-indigenous victims, receive the least protection from local and federal authorities.
Mexican women are victims of all forms of violence, from domestic violence to sexual violence and torture carried out by the army or the police, and they also become murder victims. Regrettably, up to now the response from the Mexican authorities has been ineffective, which is why we can now accurately say that we are looking at a case of almost total impunity.
Our resolution calls on the Mexican Government to fight against femicide, which is a harsh word, but an accurate one when we consider that almost all the murders involving female victims go unpunished. For example, during the past four years in Mexico, only 11% of the criminals who murdered almost 700 women have been sentenced.
At the same time, it would appear that women are the judicial system's favourite victims. There is no other way to explain how it was possible for two indigenous women, Alberta Alcántara and Teresa González, to be sentenced to 21 years in prison and to have now spent more than three years in jail for kidnapping six men from the Federal Investigations Agency - all by themselves - during an incident in a market. Let us hope that the judge, who will make a decision on the women's appeal in one week's time, realises how ridiculous and unjust the situation is.
However, violence against women starts in the home. I hope that Mexican legislators will soon make improvements to the General Law on Women's Access to a Life Free of Violence so that the different forms of violence and the mechanisms implementing the laws can be properly defined. It would also be right to establish domestic violence and rape within marriage as criminal offences.
Furthermore, in order for Mexican society to change and reject violence against women, it is important that schools deal with this issue as a basic matter of education for young people.
Adam Bielan
author. - (PL) For several years now, the authorities in Mexico, including, first and foremost, President Felipe Calderón, have been waging a bloody war against drugs gangs. Over 40 000 soldiers have been involved in the war, and several successes have been achieved. These successes include, undoubtedly, the arrests of the bosses of the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels, the destruction of over 23 000 hectares of opium crops and 38 000 hectares of marihuana, the closures of over 50 illegal laboratories which were producing narcotics and the arrests of over 45 000 people who were involved with this process.
We need to be aware that the Mexican drugs cartels generate annual incomes of many billions of dollars, which is incomparably more than the amounts allocated by the Mexican Government to tackling the narcotics problem. So the gangs are spending huge sums on corrupting politicians, judges and police officers. This is precisely why the authorities are losing the war. Since 2006, almost 15 000 people have been killed, and over 6 000 of them have been killed since last October. Journalists are especially in danger, as over 60 have been killed, including, recently, Jorge Ochoa Martínez.
We have to understand that without international involvement, Mexico will not win the war.
(Applause)
Santiago Fisas Ayxela
author. - (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mexico has a major problem with drugs trafficking and drug-related violence. To address this situation, the Government of President Felipe Calderón has adopted a tough stance in order to achieve its eradication: he has taken the decision to temporarily mobilise the armed forces, a move which has had a significant impact on the number of people arrested, the destruction of drugs and the confiscation of weapons. The army has accepted all the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission, including those concerning the investigation of complaints about their own conduct.
The Government also recognises that it needs to make substantial changes in the area of security and justice, and is implementing an ambitious reform of the justice system in order for it to be more transparent and to bring to justice those who commit crimes, while respecting human rights.
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) wishes to show its solidarity with the Mexican people in the fight against drugs trafficking, and we support President Calderón in his willingness to combat organised crime.
Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction with this agreement, which unites the main political Groups of this Parliament.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since 2007 there has been a constant increase in human rights violations in Mexico.
According to the Mexican NGOs and media, more than 6 500 murders attributable to drugs cartels have been recorded for 2009 alone, the vast majority of which were in the state of Chihuahua. President Calderón's government has sent thousands of soldiers to the worst affected areas.
Since then, the violent acts committed by these military forces and by the police forces alike have increased with complete impunity. The NGOs are producing ever more reports and talking about crimes of state. Journalists, indigenous communities, and especially women, both indigenous and nonindigenous, are particularly affected. I met some of these women from San Salvador Atenco; they had been raped and tortured by the police forces. I was appalled at what they told me. The perpetrators of these acts committed in May 2006 still enjoy complete impunity.
Therefore we cannot share the concerns of the Mexican authorities, the agents of which regularly violate human rights. It follows that we shall not support the joint resolution and we shall table ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Barbara Lochbihler
Mr President, the images of the brutal use of violence on the open street in the so-called war on drugs in Mexico reach us regularly via the mass media. The murder of hundreds of women, mostly workers in the north of the country, is making headlines and has spawned the term 'feminicide'. The European Parliament has produced its own report on this. Despite knowledge of the major increase in serious violations of human rights, the Mexican Government appears to be unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Pointing out the necessary relentlessness in the fight against drug dealers is no substitute for consistent government action. The major expansion of military presence and power, the competence of military courts for crimes committed by soldiers, the almost complete impunity - these are the real causes of the escalating violence in the country. Even the Mexican national human rights commission has repeatedly documented the increase in violent crime by the military.
The government itself does not want to admit the situation. It also continually hushes up crime. Yesterday, for example, there was a story going around in the media that the Ministry of Defence had paid out an awful lot of money to the families of victims of violence in order to buy their silence. Who were the perpetrators? They were soldiers. The EU must address the fight against impunity in all its relations with Mexico. Given the severity of the human rights violations, it is absolutely necessary for the EU not to update the Global Agreement with Mexico. It must not do so until there has been a substantial improvement in the human rights situation in that country.
Cristian Dan Preda
The escalation of violence in the Mexican states in the area bordering the United States, especially in Ciudad Juárez, is deeply worrying. The events of recent months have been particularly bloody, as the intervention of the federal authorities in this region has also been accompanied by a significant rise in the number of crimes related to drug trafficking. Therefore, the war against drug traffickers comes on top of a war between rival criminal gangs, resulting in a series of murders of exceptional brutality.
I believe that Mexico is an extreme case highlighting the entire difficulty in taking firm action against crime in order to safeguard national security. It is extremely important that we, here in the European Parliament, send a clear signal to support the efforts made by the Mexican Government aimed at eradicating crime, thereby improving the situation of the civilian population.
At the same time, we must encourage the Mexican authorities to continue vital reforms in the area of consolidating the rule of law, especially the reform of the justice and penal systems.
Thank you.
Ana Gomes
The violence in Mexico is linked to drug trafficking and the social inequalities made worse by the economic crisis. Fighting impunity is key. It is vital to invest in the judicial system to try and punish criminals and to ensure protection of witnesses and victims, many of them young working women caught in the wave of violence by the drug traffickers.
It is shocking that Juárez is the world capital of feminicide, but even more shocking is the macho culture that explains the inaction of the authorities in prosecuting those responsible for these crimes and in protecting defenders of human rights, including journalists.
Europe must use the strategic partnership with Mexico to support constructively all those who fight for human rights. They are the same people who are fighting to defend the rule of law and democracy. Without human rights there is no rule of law or democracy.
Ryszard Czarnecki
Mr President, in this Chamber a moment ago, I heard a call not to sign the understanding with the Mexican authorities. I do not understand this suggestion. After all, we commend the President of Mexico - and those who spoke before me a moment ago also did so - for his determined fight against the drugs barons and the mafia. We should, therefore, commend the Mexican authorities for their action, while at the same time, of course, pointing out that they should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that in this fight they should still try to respect human rights. That is obvious. We have to understand the situation of a country which has been struggling with huge organised crime syndicates and the mafia for decades. If the president of the country declares war in this area, he should be given complete support. However, of course, we have been speaking, here, about journalists, and we have been speaking about other victims. It should be emphasised that these people should not be made the victims of discrimination.
Rui Tavares
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (PT) Ladies and gentlemen, just this morning, the Mexican Trade Union of Electricians was surrounded by a police force of between 100 and 200 police officers. It is the same trade union that, after announcing a general strike, saw one of its leaders, Domingo Aguilar Vázquez, captured the next day on 16 March, and arrested on phony charges.
This attack on the freedom of trade unions in Mexico, conducted directly by the government, is even more shocking because we are talking here of the Mexican Federal Government not punishing crimes committed, for example, by their own military, or ineffectiveness in fighting drug trafficking.
Yes, the situation is complex. There are attacks by the armed forces on drug traffickers, but at the same time there are attacks against the trade unions. What happens is that, in a situation of ineffectiveness, impunity and rising authoritarianism, a democracy like the Mexican democracy spirals out of control.
This Parliament must vigorously condemn and, above all, call on the Mexican Government to finally stop being ineffective with regard to criminals and, apparently, so authoritarian with, for example, trade unions, workers and civil society movements.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
- (FI) Mr President, I wish to highlight two issues in our resolution on Mexico.
Firstly, as we have heard, violence has been on the increase this year. Mexico is in the grip of large drug cartels and the violence they perpetrate is estimated to have cost 15 000 lives already. The situation is especially bad close to the border between Mexico and the United States of America. The Mexican Government is trying to bring the situation under control by means of a massive military and police operation. The strategy has also attracted a lot of criticism. Obviously, responsibility for the drug trade, money laundering and the problems these cause also extends to other countries, and Mexico needs to be offered assistance and cooperation.
Secondly, I want to mention recent reports by Amnesty International regarding the unwillingness on the part of authorities to protect human rights activists. Those who stand up for indigenous peoples and poor communities are at particular risk. When it becomes dangerous to promote human rights, many have to consider the risks of the work they do. Those on whose behalf the activists work then lose hope.
These matters, issues relating to the drug trade, and human rights must also be taken up for discussion in May, when we think about plans for cooperation at the next EUMexico Summit.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) The Mexican Government must make a firm commitment to combating drug trafficking and respecting human rights and the rule of law.
Drug trafficking has resulted in acts of violence ending in losses of human life. The cities of Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez featured among the ten most dangerous cities in the world in 2009. Since 2007, 15 000 murders have been committed in the war against drugs, with the figure in 2009 alone reaching 7 724.
Young people and women are hit hardest by the trafficking and consumption of drugs. In Mexico the economic crisis may turn into a social conflict, with poverty and the lack of education being among the factors which can determine that young people become victims of drug consumption. In Mexico in 2010, approximately 7.5 million young people have no chance of being registered in the formal education system, which also means no hope of making a decent living.
In conclusion, I would say that the dialogue between the European Union and Mexico needs to be stepped up with the aim of promoting economic and social development, as well as respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Thank you.
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Mr President, we often discuss dictatorships in this House. Mexico is not a dictatorship, but a democracy. We are debating individual cases of serious humans rights violations. For Mexico, that is not the key subject. The key subject is the fact that this large democracy, which is a strategic partner of ours, has been suffering from a serious, perhaps even fatal illness for decades.
It therefore requires the right treatment and the right doctor. President Calderón and his comrades-in-arms are that doctor. That does not mean that they are capable of using, or allowed to use, every treatment there is, but we must support them.
That is why I believe that paragraph 12 in the resolution, in which we state that we intend to make greater use of our financial instrument to reinforce good governance, the rule of law, the structures of a State under the rule of law against the disintegration of the State, against organised criminality, against that impunity, which has been quite rightly criticised, is so important. We cannot do that, however, by freezing or abandoning our contacts; rather, we must strengthen them.
Francisco José Millán Mon
(ES) Mr President, we are all concerned by the increase in violence in Ciudad Juarez, but I trust in the broad measures that the Mexican authorities have put in place in order to effectively tackle this complex situation. I also support the vigorous battle President Calderón is currently waging against drugs trafficking, which is a very serious global threat that concerns us all. That is why we should help the Mexican authorities in this difficult struggle.
Ladies and gentlemen, over the past 10 years, Mexico has gone through a very positive process of political and governmental modernisation. President Calderón is steadily promoting reforms. Mexico has also taken on greater international responsibilities and is playing an active role within, for example, the United Nations and the G-20.
In this Parliament, within my modest capabilities, I have always supported the establishment of a strategic partnership between the European Union and Mexico, which we finally achieved in 2008. I hope we can adopt an ambitious joint action plan or programme at the May Summit in Madrid, because the European Union and Mexico need to work together in many areas, both on a bilateral level and in multilateral forums, in order to confront challenges and threats together, including drugs trafficking and other forms of organised crime
Charles Tannock
- Mr President, Mexico has long been a primary conduit into the world's largest market for illegal narcotics, the United States. Mexico has therefore been scarred by the brutality and violence that go hand in hand with the drugs trade. Moreover, Mexico itself, as a country of 100 million people and a vital EU strategic partner, has increasingly - and sadly - become an important market for cocaine. The rising consumption by young people is especially worrying.
Drug-related violence in Mexico only seems to be getting worse, with ever more grisly murders and journalists who report on such cases being themselves targeted. The prevalence of unemployment and poverty probably does not help either and induces a climate of lawlessness in parts of Mexico. President Calderón faces enormous challenges but he is determined to meet them head-on, and the EU should support him robustly. Particularly we should support his efforts to reform and restructure the police and criminal justice system in order to break up the corrupt links between the drug cartels and law enforcement. I believe he is also quite justified in the need to use the army as a temporary emergency measure.
Janez Potočnik
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, an unprecedented rise in violence has created, within the country, a sense of deep insecurity amongst the population. The Commission is of course highly concerned at this situation. We know that the Mexican authorities are taking this seriously and have put in place a lot of measures to address the problem.
President Calderón's war on organised crime is its main priority. Apart from deploying a number of military across the country to fight organised crime, Mexico is making a tremendous effort to strengthen law enforcement and the judicial system.
In August 2008, a package of security measures was adopted which aims at reorganising the Mexican law enforcement and justice system. The justice reform passed by the Mexican Congress in 2008 has the potential to address the main systemic problems facing criminal justice in Mexico, although we are aware that the implementation of this reform will require a long-term commitment.
Mexico is also making a very serious effort to respond to the concerns over human rights abuses, in particular the impact of organised crime groups and vested interests of freedom of the media and freedom of expression, which have been brought to the attention of the EU by civil society organisations. In this connection, the Mexican Government established a special prosecutor for crimes committed against journalists in 2006.
It is making noticeable efforts in addressing other shortcomings, as seen in the approval of a federal law to eradicate violence against women and the appointment of a special prosecutor on this issue, and in the new federal law to combat trafficking in human beings.
As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Mexico pledged to adopt a state policy on human rights and to remain open at international level with regard to human rights. The issue of the protection of human rights in the framework of the fight against organised crime and the integrity of human rights defenders are reflected in the recommendations accepted by Mexico as a result of its participation in the UN Universal Periodic Review.
Mexico has shown interest and readiness in discussing with the European Union all these issues, most recently during the session of the EU-Mexico Joint Committee held in Brussels on 26-27 November 2009. Indeed, this area constitutes the subject of dedicated cooperation.
On 3-4 December 2009, the EU and Mexico jointly organised an international seminar in Cancún on 'The Legitimate Use of Force and the Protection of Human Rights'. The seminar provided a venue to hold expert consultations on a draft policy document on the human rights accountability of local police forces.
The draft policy document was presented to the Quintana Roo local congress in the aftermath of the seminar. This initiative is complementary to the recently adopted federal law on the reform of the judiciary system and could be replicated by other federal states.
We believe that the EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership provides the best framework for the EU to support Mexico in the areas of public security and the rule of law. The Strategic Partnership executive document currently under negotiation foresees the establishment of a formal EU-Mexico policy dialogue on security issues, as well as increased cooperation with relevant EU agencies such as CEPOL, Europol, Eurojust and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
From the Commission side, we are already supporting a project from 2004-2007 to strengthen the administration of justice in Mexico. Further cooperation in the field is foreseen for the period 2011-2013.
In conclusion, it is clear that Mexico is facing important challenges in the areas of public security and respect for human rights. It is not easy and the situation is far from ideal, but it is also fair to say that it is showing willingness and determination to ensure the compatibility of an effective public security policy with respect for human rights. We will continue to support Mexico in its efforts.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place after the debates.