29 Amendments of Isabel CARVALHAIS related to 2023/2030(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas, according to the 2019 Poseidon report, 18 out of 19 Member States reported in 2012; whereas, reporting by Member States has often been incomplete and non- standardised; according to the 2019 Poseidon report,: 148 out of 19 Member States reported in 20152; whereas, according to the 2019 Poseidon report,14 out of 19 Member States reported in 2015; 15 out of 19 Member States reported in 2018; whereas, according to the ICES (2022), only 13 out of 19 Member States reported in 2021; whereas reporting by Member States has often been incomplete and non-standardised;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make the Eel Regulation the core policy for eel protection once again, ensuringe a holistic and coherent approach of the Eel Regulation; reiterates that the Eel Regulation was found to be fit for purpose by the Commission evaluation of 2020; nevertheless, is of the opinion that better implementation of the Eel Regulation and additional actions by Member States are needed;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reaffirms the Eel Regulation’s objective of the recovery of the eel stock to 40 % compared to pristine conditions and its main aim of reducing mortality so as to allow for thisthe recovery of the species; advises that it is essential to focus on the short-term achievable mortality target in order to reach the long-term biomass objective; highlights the fact that ‘pristine conditions’ can be hard to define; points out that the 40 % target is likely to be unachievable because of habitat losses, but that it is the standard for deriving the mortality reduction target;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights that the proposed measures by the Eel Regulation have a limited and uneven effect due to differences in fishing patterns among each Member State; stresses that the Member States need to strengthen national measures, in order to ensure a comprehensive approach of the Regulation;
Amendment 24 #
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 not 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 and 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, 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, therefore considers to be crucial to tackle other threats to the European eel population, such as habitat loss, pollution and migration barriers;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Is of the opinion that measures taken outside of the context of the Eel Regulation may undermine the coherence of the regulation; highlights that the Council Regulation (EU) 2023/194 of 30 January 20231a, implements a restriction of a 6-month closing period for the eel fisheries; _________________ 1a 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
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Observes that there is no feedback mechanism ensuring follow-up action and regular policy updates by the Member States in the Eel Regulation; deplorehighlights the fact that the ICES advice of 2012, 2018 and 2021, post-evaluating the national implementation of the Eel Regulation, has not been put into practice sufficiently;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls, therefore, for the creation of an eel-specific advisory council with representatives from the Member States and the fishing sector, recreational fishers, water managers, hydro-power companies, conservationists and other relevant parties; suggesttresses that thise advisory council should be tasked withmain task is 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 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes, in this regard, the Commission’s intention to establish an expert group, as announced in its action plan on marine ecosystems, with the aim of bringing together fisheries and infrastructure experts from the national ministries; asks the Commission to take the above suggestions on boardand the Member States to support and push to the above suggestions and take them into account when setting up this expert group;
Amendment 40 #
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; uUrges the Member States to regularly update their EMPs, based on the best available knowledge and advice; encourages 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 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that there is a delay in the implementation of the Regulation and there is an incomplete reporting of eel data; 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); highlights the fact that it is vital to gatherhave as much information and data as possible in order to be able to take appropriate, to ensure the most updated scientific advices in order to be able to decide, implement and evaluate the most appropriate management measures;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights the important role that eel fisheries play in society, with eel fishing being both a socio-economic activity and a cultural, centuries-old tradition; considers 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 a full closure of fisheries could lead to more illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing;underlines that fishers have an important role to play as guardians and ‘eyes and ears’ in our seas and rivers; and points out that eel fisheries, is mainly carry out aby small-scale, and artisanal activity and are often locatedfishers, often in remote areas, where fishers play an important environmental and social role;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. ExpStresses its hope that wherethat if further restrictions on eel fisheries might beare deemed necessary, this isit should be done in the context of the national EMPs and not in the form of ad hoc Council decisions, and based on priorthe decisions should take into account prior environmental and socio-economic impact assessments;
Amendment 56 #
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 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;, therefore:
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point a (new)
Paragraph 12 – point a (new)
(a) calls on the Member States to continue the practice of restocking;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point b (new)
Paragraph 12 – point b (new)
(b) 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;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point c (new)
Paragraph 12 – point c (new)
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point d (new)
Paragraph 12 – point d (new)
(d) stresses that glass eel catches are crucial for the European aquaculture sector and recognises the important role of aquaculture in restocking;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls onEncourages the Member States 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 limitin the context of the EMPs and in consultation with fishers, to determine the most suitable periods to fish, considering the necessity to keep fishing catches to a responsible level; adds that this could contribute to preventing overfishings;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Member States to remove obsolete dams and other barriers as a matter of urgency; , or create solutions that allow species migration as a matter of urgency, in accordance to Nature Restoration Law agreement and within the objectives stablished in the Biodiversity Strategy part of the European Green Deal;
Amendment 76 #
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.
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Highlights the fact that migration measures should be implemented in a coordinated way, with a view to other barriers upstream or downstream along the same migration route; stresses that the timing of the closures shall be based on the best available scientific information for each geographical area and should be ensured that the closures cover the peak migration period;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Encourages the Member States alsoto study thouroughly and to take measures against other eel anthropogenic mortality factors, such as pollution and parasites;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that IUU fishing and illegal trade continues to presentbe a significant problem; commends the current successes of law enforcement and stresses the importance of preventing further trafficking; stresses that more checks on and monitoring of the Eel Regulation are needed;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for better coordination of customs, police, fisheries control and environmental authorities in and between the Member States, as well as exchange of data; calls on the Member States to continue to invest in the expertise and capacity of law enforcement;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Member States to swiftly implement the recently approved Fisheries Control Regulation that impose truly dissuasive sanctions; calls for the and harmonisation ofe financial fines between Member States;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls that much is unknown about the eel life cycle, including its spawning process and the exact reasons for the stock decline; calls, therefore, for more scientific research, with sufficient funding and human resources, into the status of the stock and the reasons for its decline; suggests that research should also look into the effects of climate change, for example in the Gulf Stream to and from the Sargasso Sea;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on the Commission and the relevant Member States to have an ambitious and realistic, in the context of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean management plan for eel; believes that it is highly desirable for this plan to, to have an ambitious and realistic approach to the multiannual management plan for the European eel; highlights that this multiannual management plan should be aligned with the Eel Regulation;