15 Amendments of France JAMET related to 2022/2003(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, states in recital 14 that ‘it is important for the management of the CFP to be guided by principles of good governance’. Those principles include decision-making based on best available scientific advice, broad stakeholder involvement and a long-term perspective’1, fishers being the principal stakeholders; _________________ 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32013 R1380
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas there are also numerous success stories in EU candidatethird countries such as Türkiye5 (the EU SMAP III project, completed in 2009 in Gokova Bay, and the next project SAD-Rubicon6); in third countries, such as, Senegal with co- management of octopus and green lobster fisheries7, and in Asia, in countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka,8, etc.; _________________ 5 https://www.proquest.com/openview/797b e3d336f18ec8f2382df02a76e1e5/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=1736342 6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2 79419535_Socio- economic_benefits_of_Gokova_SEPA_Tur key_Special_emphasize_to_small- scale_fisheries 7 https://www.fishforward.eu/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/WWF_Senegal_ ENSP.pdf 8 https://www.fao.org/3/cb3840en/cb3840en. pdf
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas traditional managementhe Common Fisheries Policy has not had the desired effects on improving stocks and maintaining employment;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas it is difficult to obtain and collect data and information on marine environments and fisheries, and whereas the participation of the fisherifisheries sector stakeholders should be consulted to a greater extent by public and private research bodies at European level, as their involvement is es sector itself in this work is important for all public and private research bodies at European levelntial in order to collect data and information on marine environments and fisheries, as laid down in Article 25 of the Common Fisheries Policy in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, in all the cases of co- management mentioned above, the change in the role of fishers – from passive subjects who comply with the rules to protagonists in fisheries management – is fundamental to the success of the initiatives adopted, as they learn to understand the importance of the rules, to defend them and monitor compliance with them, and to manage their fishing methods in an ecosystem-based approach, understanding, in keeping with their traditional role as stewards of the oceans and their resources, they are better able to make the most of their experience and observations so as to decide on conservation rules and monitor compliance with them in order to limit the importanceact of their fisheries in theing on ecosystems;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas scientific work isand socio- economic impact studies are needed to advise on the measures to be taken to ensure responsible use of common resources, as laid down in Articles 26 and 27 of the Common Fisheries Policy in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Asks the Commission for a regulatory frameworkto make recommendations to Member States on fisheries co- management, which is directly applicable in the Member States;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses that there is, moreover, a need in the current co-management sysCalls on Member Statems for concrete legislative measuresto clarify their legislative framework in order to pave the way for the setting up of co- management committees and to speed up the process of implementing measures, as the legislative framework is currently unclear in most regions, which means that the requisite timeframe for their creation and implementation is in the, providing short-, medium- and long -term, whereas solutions are needed in the short to medium term;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Reiterates that fisheries co- management already exists and has been successful in many of the known cases, and that there are legislative initiatives in this regard, both at local level, such as in Galicia, Catalonia and Andalusia in Spain, and at state level, such as in Portugal, Italy, Sweden, Croatia and the Netherlands; stresses that the lack of standardisation of regulations at European level prevents this system from being applied in other regions and countries;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Emphasises that, with regard to the European Union, co-management – and similar concepts such as co-governance or participatory management – has been briefly described in the preamble to various regulations at European level, but it has not been properly developed that, because of the fishing their articles, nor has it generated sufficient debate to promote specificraditions specific to each of the Member States, it is for them to enact legislation for regulations to promote this fisheries management system, which has proved its worth in different regions and in different cases;