10 Amendments of François-Xavier BELLAMY related to 2022/2003(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there are numerous cases of successful implementation of fisheries co-management within Member States, including in Spain (Galicia, Catalonia and Andalusia), Portugal (Algarve and Peniche-Nazé), France, Sweden (Kosterhavets)2,2 the Netherlands3, Italy (Torre Guaceto) and Croatia (Telašćica and Lastovo)4; _________________ 2 https://oceans-and- fisheries.ec.europa.eu/news/co- management-northern-bohuslan-fishers- and-conservationists-join-forces- sustainable-future-2022-03-01_en 3 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2 57943913_Co- management_An_alternative_to_enforcem ent 4 https://www.wwfmmi.org/?1715691/First- co-managed-fishery-area-adopted-by-law- in-Croatia
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas a general principle of fisheries co-management needs to be established at both European and national level;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas traditional management has not had the desired effects on improving stocks and maintaining employmenthe impact of co- management systems on achieving the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy ought to be assessed;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Draws attention to the fact that there is no unified assessment of the instances where co-management has been implemented in the EU and elsewhere in the world that identifies the system's main drivers; calls on the Commission to assess the examples of fisheries co-management in the above countries and to give backing to phasing it in within other fisheries and in the regional fisheries bodies in which it participates;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Asks the Commission for a regulatory framework onnon- binding fisheries co- management, which is directly applicable in the measures, taking into account the specific characteristics of the fisheries sector in each Member States;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses that there is, moreover, a need in thsome current co-management systems for concrete legislative measures 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 long term, whereas solutions are needed in the short to medium term;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to promote, within the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFF), a commitment to co-management models for fisheries with adequate funding so that their operating expenditure can be covered;
Amendment 118 #
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 France, 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 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Points out that, at European level, co-management should start by improving dialogue between the Commission and the fisheries sector, for example by investing more in the Advisory Councils in order to make the scope for co-management that they provide at European level more effective;