19 Amendments of Asger CHRISTENSEN related to 2023/2030(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas only the Netherlands has submitted updated EMPs for approval, namely in 2011 and again in 2018Member States are taking action and are implementing their EMPs in different ways based on their national administrative tradition; whereas more action is needed in terms of implementing measures and, where necessary, updating their EMPs;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make full use of the Eel Regulation as the core policy for eel protection once againmanagement, ensuring a holistic and coherent approach; reiterate which also includes fully implementing measures in other relevant areas outside of fisheries; recalls that the Eel Regulation was found to be fit for purpose by the Commission evaluation of 2020; is of the opinion that better implementation of the Eel Regulation and additional actions by Member States are needed;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that some data shows that the decline in stocks in some areas has halted since the adoption of the Eel Regulation, indicating that the Eel Regulation is showing some positive preliminary results, but thathowever to a large extent the decrees in the stocks are still persisting and thus consequently recovery will be a long- term process over several decades;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that managing the eel stock is too complex for a one-sided marine- oriented approach; highlights the fact that focusing on annual fishing opportunities does notis a very ill-suited measure to properly take into account important factors such as migration barriers, habitat quality and illegal catches and trade; underlines that the Eel Regulation is holistic and comprehensive, captures both the marine and freshwater life stages of the eel and addresses both fisheries and non- fisheries impacts; points out, in addition, that non- fisheries impacts may be bigger than the fisheries impacts anshould be fully taken into account, based on an ecosystem based approach; is concerned that far too little attention has been given thus far to non-fishery anthropogenic mortalities; is of the opinion that measures taken outside of the context of the Eel Regulation undermine the coherence of adopted policy; deplores, therefore, the non- holistic approach taken in, Council Regulation (EU) 2023/194 of 30 January 2023 fixing for 2023 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, as well as fixing for 2023 and 2024 such fishing opportunities for certain deep- sea fish stocks, restricting eel fisheries with a 6-month closing period, without a full package of measures ensuring proper management measures as well as the appropriate support to the affected fisheries;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls, therefore, for the creation of an eel-specific advisory councilgroup with representatives from the Member States and the fishing sector, recreational fishers, water managers, hydro-power companies, conservationists and other relevant parties; suggests that this advisory councilbody should be tasked with advising the Commission on the implementation of the Eel Regulation, providing feedback to Member States on their EMPs, exchanging information between the different parties and evaluating the progress on implementation at national and European level;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets the fact that only one Member State has submitted an updated EMP for approval since the adoption of the Eel Regulation; urges the Member States to regularly update their EMPs, based on the best available knowledge and advice; encouragescalls on the Member States to put concrete targets and intermediate deadlines in their updated EMPs; stresses that the recovery of the eel is a long-term process that requires continuous effort and that a one- time management plan will not be sufficient;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Regrets the fact that the number of Member States adhering to the reporting requirement under Article 9(1) of the Eel Regulation has declined over the years; reminds the Member States of their obligations under Article 9(1) importance of fulfilling their obligations in this regard; highlights the fact that it is vital to gather as much information and data as possible in order to be able to take appropriate measures;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights the important role that eel fisheries play in societywithin their local communities, with eel fishing being both a socio-economic activity and a cultural, centuries-old tradition; considernotes that eel fishing has reduced significantly in the past decade; calls on the Commission and the Member States to refrain as much as possible from placing further restrictions on fisheries; underlines that fishers have an important role to play as guardians and ‘eyes and ears’, while and when needed to ensure that appropriate compensation and support are provided; underlines that fishers have an important role to play in gathering data and being ‘eyes and ears’ in relation the daily activities at Sea; points out the risk that a full closure of fisheries could lead to more illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing; points out that eel fisheries carry out a small-scale, artisanal activity and are often located in rural and remote areas, where fishers play an important economic, environmental and social role;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Expresses its hope that where further restrictions on fisheries might be necessary, this is done in a holistic way, preferably in the context of the national EMPs and not in the form of ad hoc Council decisions, and based on prior socio-economic impact assessments; regardless they must all be based on the best scientific advice and on a prior socio-economic impact assessments; urges therefore the Member States to more actively use and update the EMPs in order to avoid ad hoc Council decisions;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Reaffirms that restocking is one of the recovery measures listed under Article 2(8) of the Eel Regulation; is of the view that restocking is a necessary measure until the problem of migration barriers is solved adequately; calls, in this regard, on the Member States to continue the practice of restocking; highlights the fact that, although the contribution of restocking to stock recovery at an international level cannot be ascertained, it can have positive effects at local level; is of the opinion that restocking is a way of spreading and limiting risks for the recovery of the stock, considering the increasing drought that is causing problems in rivers throughout Europe; points out, furthermore, that catches for restocking are relatively low (2- 3 % of all glass eels); stresses that glass eel catches are crucial for the European aquaculture sector and recognises the important role of aquaculture in restocking;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Member States, within the extent possible, to give flexibility to fishers in determining the most suitable periods to fish, which can differ per country; encourages the Member States, in this regard, to consider, in consultation with fishers, the use of quota systems, in order to keep fishing at responsible levels; highlights that one of the advantages of a quota system would be that it enables fishers to choose to fish at times when it is commercially interesting to do so, while limiting catches to a responsible level; adds that this could contribute to preventing overfishing;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Underlines that there are fish- friendly alternatives on the market to make water pumps and hydro-power stations passable for fish; calls on the Member States to make fish safety a mandatory requirement for new installations and for old ones when they are replaced; points out that a common methodology might be needed in order to determine and certify when pumps can be considered fish friendly; highlights that the existing Royal Netherlands Standardisation Institute (NEN) standard 87759 in the Netherlands could serve as an example; _________________ 9 NEN 8775:2020+C1:2022 nl.could facilitate the deployment of infrastructure that will certify when pumps can be considered fish friendly;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Encourages the Member States also to take measures against other anthropogenic mortality factors, such as pollution and parasiteNotes that eel fisheries in marine waters in some parts of the EU only accounts for around 3% of eel mortality; encourages the Member States also to take measures against other anthropogenic mortality factors, which some reports say accounts for up to 49% of mortality rate; highlights in this regard the need for proper management of other species affecting the eel population, such as cormorants;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Recognises the importance of civil society organisations and for individuals engaging in recreational fisheries activities, including conservation projects; notes that these activities plays an important part in the social cohesion of local and rural communities;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that IUU fishing and illegal trade continue to present a significant problem; commends the current successes of law enforcement and stresses the importance of preventing further trafficking, including by customs authorities; stresses that more checks on and monitoring of the Eel Regulation are needed;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for better coordination of customs, police and environmental authorities in and between the Member States as well as further cooperation with third countries, as well as exchange of data; calls on the Member States to continue to invest in the expertise and capacity of law enforcement;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Stresses that data collection, monitoring and reporting should be harmonised and standardised so that data can be compared; recommends that commercial and recreational fishersfishers, where appropriate, should be involved in the collection and analysis of data;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Encourages the Member States to put in place more transboundary EMPs, where appropriate; highlights the importance of the Commission to support and facilitate such work by the Member States;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on the Commission and the relevant Member States to haveto work for an ambitious and realistic General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean management plan for eel; believes that it is highly desirable for this plan to be aligned with the Eel Regulation;