12 Amendments of Peter van DALEN related to 2019/2177(INI)
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. Whereas although the introduction of the landing obligation has been done gradually, the European Commission did not provide answers to the many implementing doubts raised by the Advisory Councils and Member States;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
E b. Whereas the implementation of the landing obligation depends on extensive use of exemptions which are temporary and require annual revisit, absorbing too much time, money and effort from decision-makers, taxpayers and the fishing industry;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. Whereas choke species in mixed fisheries remains an ongoing problem;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
G b. Whereas differences in control and enforcement of the landing obligation can lead to an uneven playing field within and between Member States;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G c (new)
Recital G c (new)
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
H a. Whereas no impact assessment on the socio-economic and safety consequences of the landing obligation was conducted to underpin Art. 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation, contrary to the Commission obligation to carry out impact assessments on initiatives expected to have significant economic, social or environmental impacts;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Regrets that despite fishermen’s efforts to be more selective and to comply with the new rules, Art.15 is not working as intended due to the administrative difficulties encountered to develop selectivity pilot projects which require special authorisations, the patchwork of rules contained in the many discard plans, the clash with national rules and the complexity of mixed fisheries management;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that the landing obligation is not a goal in itself but a tool to drive improvements in fishing and operational behaviour, incentivise the development and usage of more selective gears to minimise unwanted catches, and improve catch documentation for a better understanding and scientific assessment of fish stocks; recognises that whilthe pcursuing this ultimate objective requires time and sufficient knowledge, greater efforts are needed to promote a common understanding of it and to fully utilise the landing obligation as a means to achieve it;rent landing obligation is not fit for purpose; calls on the European Commission to stop utilising this tool
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
12. Stresses that while improving selectivity must be a high priority, implementing the landing obligation requires a cross-sectoral approach and clear incentives to be devised to encourage best practice mitigationArticle 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy is not fit for purpose; urges the European Commission to revise Article 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy; recommends the following accompanying measures and management tools:
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point a
Paragraph 12 – point a
a. using quota-based tools: the distribution of quotas in line with the expected catch composition, further use of adjustments throughoptimisation of quota swaps with other Member States and the allocation of estimated discard share of quotas for fishers that opt to use more selective gear;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point e
Paragraph 12 – point e
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point h – point i (new)
Paragraph 12 – point h – point i (new)
i) Calls on the European Commission to stop utilising the landing obligation as a tool if the above mentioned recommendations cannot be granted;