Awaiting committee decision
2015/2092(INI) New CFP: structure for technical measures and multiannual plans
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2016/01/18
Lead committee dossier: PECH/8/03339
Legal Basis RoP 052
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2016/01/18
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | PECH | MATO Gabriel (EPP) | RODUST Ulrike (S&D), VAN DALEN Peter (ECR), BILBAO BARANDICA Izaskun (ALDE), FERREIRA João (GUE/NGL), AFFRONTE Marco (EFD) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Subjects
Activites
-
2016/01/18
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
-
2015/11/10
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2015/04/30
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 248 |
2015/2092(INI)
2015/10/20
PECH
248 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A (new) -A. whereas the sustainability of fish stocks is the sine qua non for the future of the fishing industry,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) B a. believes that minimum conservation reference sizes should be established according to the maturity size of the species, with the aim of ensuring the protection of juveniles of marine organism and allowing every individual to spawn at least once before capture
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Recital T Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Recital T T. whereas CFP reform introduced landing requirements
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Recital T T. whereas CFP reform introduced landing requirements
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Recital T T. whereas CFP reform introduced landing requirements while failing to do anything to make the TAC and quota systems less inherently rigid, which has led to significant problems for the European fisheries sector as a whole, and family- based businesses in particular;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas difficulties in implementing the discard ban in mixed (demersal) fisheries are likely to arise with ‘choke’ species; whereas the multiannual plans should therefore seek to
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas difficulties in implementing the discard ban in mixed fisheries are likely to arise with 'choke' species;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas difficulties in implementing the discard ban in mixed fisheries
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas difficulties in implementing the
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas difficulties in implementing the
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the main changes
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas difficulties in implementing the
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Recital V Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Recital V V. whereas, following the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has joint
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Recital X Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Z Z. whereas
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Z Z. whereas,
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AA Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AA AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include high and stable yields while maintaining stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, something which must be reflected in annual Council decisions regarding fishing opportunities in the light of the latest scientific intelligence; whereas these annual decisions should be strictly confined to the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should as far as possible seek to avoid large fluctuations in this respect;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AA AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the main changes introduced under the 2013 CFP reform also include
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AA AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AA AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AD Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AD Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AD Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AD AD. whereas progress has been made with the multi-annual plan for the Baltic, the Council having agreed to work jointly with the EP, on the basis of Article 43(2) TFEU, on the adoption of fishing mortality targets;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AE Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AE AE. whereas, in the absence of multiannual plans, minimum conservation reference sizes may be modified under discard plans adopted by the Commission in delegated acts
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AE AE. whereas, in the absence of multiannual plans, minimum conservation reference sizes may be modified under discard plans adopted by the Commission in delegated acts on the recommendations of the Member States concerned as far as the protection of juveniles of marine organisms is ensured and scientific scrutiny is followed;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AF AF. whereas
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AG Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AH AH. whereas, for the same species, minimum conservation reference sizes may vary from one area to another in order to take into account the specific nature of the
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AH AH. whereas, for the same species, minimum conservation reference sizes may vary from one area to another in order to take into account the specific nature of the
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Supports a change to the current institutional framework, which gives the EU sole responsibility for the management of living marine resources, to allow broad decentralisation and local management, firmly rooted in scientific knowledge, which takes account of the enormous diversity of the sector within the EU (as regards stocks, fleets, fishing techniques and fisheries) and which is able to involve the sector in the setting and implementation of policies;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that, in order to ensure the implementation of the CFP objectives, future technical measures should be simplified, contained in a clearly structured legal framework and based on a solid scientific
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that future technical measures should be simplified, contained in a clearly structured legal framework and based on a solid scientific approach as well as meeting cultural and economic criteria;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that future technical measures should be simplified in order to remove any contradiction and/or duplication, rational, contained in a clearly structured legal framework and based on a solid scientific approach reviewed by peers;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a Considers it necessary to compile a comprehensive list summarising all technical measures currently in force, in order to obtain a better overview of possible simplifications and deletions in relation to future technical measures;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Believes that technical measures must be reviewed in a bid to
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Believes that technical measures must be reviewed in a bid to
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Believes that technical measures must be reviewed in a bid to improve selectivity, reduce discards and the impact of fishing on the environment, simplify and standardise current rules, improve the scientific base and make it more consistent and more acceptable to the fisheries sector;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Considers that
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Considers that
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Maintains that the simplification and regionalization of technical measures should be always consistent with the real purpose of the technical measures regulation which is the minimization of unwanted catches and impacts on the marine environment;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making by being invited to put forward proposals through representative associations, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to use more selective fishing gear;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, especially within the context of advisory councils, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to use more selective fishing gear;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that, in order to
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas Article 17 CFP provides that, when allocating the fishing opportunities available to them, as referred to in Article 16, Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. The criteria to be used may include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance, the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels. Within the fishing opportunities allocated to them, Member States shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, such as reduced energy consumption or habitat damage;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, in particular within the RAC, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to use more selective fishing gear;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, given incentives such as, for example, more aid for training, innovation
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to use more selective fishing gear, both from a financial perspective and by means of legislative alignment;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Considers that the new legislative framework shall facilitate the further use of innovative fishing gears which have scientifically proven to increase the selectivity and simultaneously have a reduced impact on the environment;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Considers that innovation and research will need to be promoted to ensure that the CFP is properly implemented, in particular as regards the landing of discards, in order to increase selectivity and modernise fishing and monitoring techniques;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Believes that the sustainable use of innovative fishing gear which has been proven to be more selective by independent scientific research should be permitted without taboo or unnecessary quantitative limitations, governed by legislation and – insofar as further research is concerned – given financial support,
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Considers it undesirable for the current state of derogations and percentage use limits for Member State fleets to continue insofar as this relates to the innovative, more selective fishing methods, such as electric pulse fishing;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Believes, in light of the above, that sustainable and innovative fishing methods which have increased selectivity, such as electric pulse fishing, should be permitted in full in the associated fisheries areas and in other areas, where possible, during the necessary revision of the technical measures;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Considers it necessary to maintain the
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Considers it necessary to maintain the co-decision procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins , or which are already covered by separate regulations, or for those are not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas artisanal fishing meets all of the objectives set in Article 17;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Considers it necessary to maintain the co-decision procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins, including the establishment of standards and objectives for technical measures, or for those are not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Considers it necessary to maintain the co-decision procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins or for those are not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future and believes that co- decision is unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Believes codecision sometimes to be unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes, and that reasonable recourse to delegated acts makes it possible to meet this need of flexibility and responsiveness; recalls however that the EP retains the right to object to any delegated act, in accordance with the Treaty;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Believes codecision to be unnecessary for measures adopted at infra-regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recommends that a clear, general European framework for the technical measures should be defined, setting out a limited number of major cross-cutting principles; believes that all rules not applicable to the vast majority of European waters should not be included in this general framework but instead come under regionalisation;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Considers that any measure adopted at regional level should conform with the technical measures framework regulation and be coherent with the objectives of the CFP and Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas technical measures that have piled up over the years are currently so complex, diverse and disorganised, as to be frequently inconsistent or even contradictory, not to mention being difficult for those in the fisheries sector to comprehend;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co- decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules and definitions (including a list of prohibited gear and species), a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co-
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co- decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules, a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co- decision; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at regional level or subject to frequent changes, such as a detailed indication of particular fishing practices or gear used in the area concerned
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co- decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules, a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co- decision; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at infra-regional level or subject to frequent changes
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co- decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules including common objectives and standards to apply throughout the EU, a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co-
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers that
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Underlines the need for the new framework of technical measures to read clearly, which will require a significant clarification effort; consequently requests that the existing technical measures, in particular Regulations 850/98 and 1967/2006, be revoked beforehand in order to bring an end to the piling-up of regulations;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Recalls that as regards delegated acts, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic regulation, Member States may, within a time limit to be set in the regulation on the technical measures, submit recommendations to the European Commission, and that the latter will not be able to adopt any act prior to the expiration of that time limit;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas technical measures are currently so
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers it necessary to assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio- economic implications for EU fleets of specific regulations based on technical
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers it necessary to assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio- economic implications for EU fleets of specific regulations based on technical measures, such as those concerning driftnets, incidental cetacean catches,
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers it necessary to assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio- economic implications for EU fleets of specific regulations based on technical measures
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers it necessary to assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio- economic implications for EU fleets and for the local communities of specific regulations based on technical measures, such as those concerning driftnets, incidental cetacean catches, the ban on on- board shark finning or deep-sea fishing;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Believes that the technical measures should include specific provisions on the use of certain fishing gear in order to protect vulnerable habitats and marine species.
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Believes that the technical measures should ensure that destructive and non- selective fishing gear is not used in certain regions, and that the general use of explosive and poisonous substances should be prohibited.
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 c (new) 8c. Considers it absolutely vital that Member States also be obliged to carry out border and ramp checks on fishing activities, in light of the high number of instances of illegal fishing gear being used, and for sanctions to be strengthened in compliance with European policies to combat IUU fishing.
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the current technical measures are
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 d (new) 8d. Considers it appropriate, as considered by the CFP, to reintroduce into the regionalisation measures an indication of the characteristics of fishing gear and its use, such as the length of nets, mesh size, maximum distance from the coast, nomination of areas or disembarkation ports, etc.
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each,
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each, especially that of the Mediterranean, where Community decisions may have a significant impact on the recovery of fish stocks and ecossystems and on competition between European and third-
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Considers that in case of technical measures which regulate the maximum number of allowed catch days, only days with the registered catch should be taken into account.
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Considers that in accordance with the scientific definition and classification of fishing gear categories, it is necessary to split, for the Mediterranean basin, trawl nets and shore seines because the legislation which regulate trawl nets should not be identical with traditional coastal shore seines as they target mainly non endangered species.
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas t
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the discard ban which has been in force since 1 January 2015 and is in the process of being gradually applied to all types of catch by 2019, provisions regarding technical measures in areas such as catch composition must be sufficiently flexible to adapt in real time to progress in the fisheries and more selective fishing techniques;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the discard ban, provisions regarding technical measures in areas such as catch composition must be sufficiently flexible
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the discard ban, provisions regarding technical measures in areas
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Believes that the landing obligation constitutes a fundamental change for fisheries, and that the technical measures therefore need to be adapted so as to allow them to implement and facilitate more selective fishing; recommends the following three measures in order to achieve this: - substantially modifying, or even revoking, the rules governing the composition of catches, - affording greater flexibility as regards netting, - making it possible to hold several types of gear on board;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Takes note of the difficulties arising from the coexistence of the marketing standards laid down by Regulation 2406/96 and the minimum catch sizes; requests that they be harmonised by the new framework of technical measures;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 c (new) 10c. Questions the importance of a management approach based solely on the minimum catch sizes in certain fisheries, especially in the Mediterranean; believes that it would be appropriate to supplement this approach with time-area measures relating to fishing effort;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers that a review of technical measures must take account their impact in terms of not only resource conservation and the ecosystem but also fishing operating costs and profitability in socio- occupational terms;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers that a review of technical measures
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas technical measures are currently so complex
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers that a review of technical measures must take account their impact in terms of
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers that a review of technical measures must take account their impact in terms of not only resource conservation but also fishing operating costs and profitability, with particular attention being paid to the impact on family-based businesses in the sector and associated market organisation issues;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Believes that minimum conservation reference sizes should be established according to the maturity size of the species, with the aim of ensuring the protection of juveniles of marine organism and allowing every individual to spawn at least once before capture
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management,
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management,
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management,
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management,
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Considers that incidental artisanal fishing in the inland waters of the States and Autonomous Communities must remain outside the TACs;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Believes that multi-annual plans are
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the principle of regionalization includes the consultation of the Advisory Councils with the purpose of bringing the stakeholders closer to the decision making process and better evaluating the possible socio-economic impacts of the decisions;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Believes that multi-annual plans are being called on to play a
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Emphasises that multiannual plans should be framed within local management, giving national authorities a predominant role in setting them;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Believes that the co-legislators must continue to seek agreement on multiannual plans
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Believes that the co-legislators must continue to seek agreement on multiannual
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Believes that the co-legislators must continue to seek agreement on multiannual plans on the basis of the case-law which is currently established by the EU Court of Justice;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific advice and socio-
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific a
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific and socio- economic findings recognised by peers, and be adapted to the evolution of stocks, as well as providing flexibility for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; notes that these
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust, rational and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific and socio-
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Maintains that
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Maintains that it is necessary to devise future multiannual plans for
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Maintains that it is necessary to devise future multiannual plans for achieving and maintaining stocks above the maximum sustainable yield, including an advance timetable, a
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, it would be advisable to find ways of
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, i
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17 Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, it would be advisable to find ways of regulating the fishing effort free of the rigidities of TACs and quotas
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries,
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the European Parliament should give particularly close scrutiny to delegated acts regarding discard plans and reserve the right to object to any if it deems it necessary;
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Considers that the transitional validity of the delegated acts regarding discard plans, including changes to the minimum conservation reference sizes, should not in any case exceed three years and should be replaced, where appropriate, by a multi- annual plan and that, to that end, multiannual plans should be adopted as soon as possible;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Considers that the transitional validity of the delegated acts regarding discard plans
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Takes the view that, in the context of regionalisation,
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Takes the view that, in the context of regionalisation, it is necessary to avoid the proliferation of decisions
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the complexity of the technical measures and the difficulties
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the complexity of the technical measures and the difficulties arising,
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the complexity of the technical measures and the difficulties arising,
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) E a. whereas the technical measures represent an opportunity for a proper balance to be established between the management of fishing activities and the relevant environmental policies, in particular in view of the objective to achieve a good environmental status of marine waters by 2020, and taking account of the link between the Habitats Directive, together with the Birds Directive, and the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas, since 2009, legislative proposals regarding technical measures and multiannual plans have made
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the review of technical measures,
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the review of technical measures, based on a solid scientific approach, should seek to improve the
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the review of technical measures, based on a solid scientific approach, should seek to improve the
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the review of technical measures, based on a solid scientific approach, should seek to improve the long- term sustainability of fishery resources
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the discard ban and maximum sustainable yield objective require the use of more selective fishing gear and existing bans in technical measures hamper innovation and large-scale research into more selective modern fishing gear;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Ga. whereas current innovations that improve the selectivity of fishing gear are frequently hindered by legislation;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the discard ban involves a radical change of approach to fisheries management, and hence to technical measures in key areas such as catch composition and netting;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the discard ban involves a radical change of approach to fisheries management, with special attention to demersal fisheries, and hence to technical measures in key areas such as catch composition;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the failure of the Council to adopt a clear position has prevented the
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) I a. whereas particular emphasis needs to be placed on the importance of small- scale fishing for the sustainability of coastal communities, and in particular for the role of women and children. Whereas the CFP alludes to a differentiated regime for small-scale fishing in Europe.
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I b (new) I b. whereas a general definition is needed for the concept of small-scale fishing, in light of the role it plays in the process of rehabilitating our seas and in preserving traditional and environmentally sustainable practices and trades.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas the definition of basic principles common to all basins through a framework regulation adopted by codecision ('ordinary legislative procedure' under the Lisbon Treaty), is necessary to ensure a level playing field between operators, allow a democratically devised framework to be put in place and facilitate the implementation and monitoring of technical measures;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas the definition of basic principles common to all basins through a framework regulation adopted by
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) included among its objectives t
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J a (new) J a. whereas the infra-regional level is that which is situated lower than the sea basin level;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas codecision is not always necessary for measures taken at regional level or subject to frequent changes, but must be used for the adoption of rules that are common to all sea basins or not likely to be amended
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas codecision is not necessary for measures taken at infra-regional level or subject to frequent changes, but must be used for the adoption of rules that are common to all sea basins, already covered by separate regulations or not likely to be amended in the foreseeable future;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas codecision is not necessary for measures taken at regional level and based on standards and objectives decided by the co-legislators or subject to frequent changes, but must be used for the adoption of rules that are common to all sea basins or not likely to be amended in the foreseeable future;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas regionalisation
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas regionalisation can ensure that rules are adapted to the specific requirements of each fishery and each basin, ensuring flexibility and facilitating a rapid response to
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas regionalisation
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) include
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas regionalisation can help make the rules simpler and more comprehensible, which would be greatly welcomed by the fisheries sector and other stakeholders, especially where
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas regionalisation can help make the rules simpler and more comprehensible, which would be greatly welcomed by the fisheries sector and other stakeholders, especially where
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N N. whereas
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O. whereas the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis should follow the model agreed by the co-legislators under the new common fisheries policy, namely for adoption by the Commission of delegated acts on the basis of joint recommendations from the Member States concerned; whereas the EP nevertheless retains the right to object to any delegated act, in accordance with the Treaty;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O. whereas the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis should follow the model agreed by the co-legislators under the new common fisheries policy, namely for adoption by the Commission of delegated acts on the basis of joint recommendations from the Member States concerned that meet the standards and objectives decided by the co-legislators, or, if the concerned Member States do not submit a joint recommendation within the designated time, on the Commission's own initiative;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O. whereas the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis should follow the model agreed by the co-legislators under the new common fisheries policy, namely for adoption by the Commission of delegated acts on the basis of joint recommendations from the Member States concerned within the deadline stipulated;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O. whereas the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis may in particular should follow the model agreed by the co-legislators under the new common fisheries policy, namely for adoption by the Commission of delegated acts on the basis of joint recommendations from the Member States concerned;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O a (new) Oa. whereas delegated acts for regionalisation are one of the means provided for, but to date the method used to decide on the delegated act has already shown its weaknesses and flaws, in terms of transparency and consultation with those involved (notably the RACs, European Regions, etc.), but also in terms of information and consultation as regards the content;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O b (new) Ob. whereas the technical delegated acts adopted to date cover the same geographic perimeter as the existing technical regulations (namely the sea basins), and it is justifiable to question the reason why some stem from codecision and other delegated acts;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O c (new) Oc. Whereas the revision of the framework of technical measures should present an opportunity to continue reflecting on regionalisation and to think about alternatives to delegated acts;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P P. whereas certain proposals for specific regulations containing technical measures (concerning driftnets, cetacean bycatches,
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P P. whereas certain proposals for specific regulations containing technical measures (concerning driftnets, cetacean bycatches, ban on on-board shark finning or deep-sea fishing) have proved controversial; whereas some proposals, such as those concerning deep-sea fishing in the northeast Atlantic, have been blocked for over three years; whereas deliberations on driftnet fishing are also deadlocked; whereas
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P a (new) Pa. whereas the technical measures should take account of the phenomenon of illegal fishing which is often accompanied by the illegal use of fishing gear, such as in the case of driftnets, and should propose an effective solution to the problem posed by IUU fishing.
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) included among its objectives the achievement of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), using an ecosystem-based approach; whereas technical measures and multiannual plans
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas technical measures applicable in
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas technical measures applicable in
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas technical measures applicable in the North Sea, the north-east Atlantic and the Mediterranean are not always adapted to the needs of the different local fisheries, both those that are innovative and those of longer standing;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas technical measures applicable in the Mediterranean are not always adapted to the needs of the different local fisheries, and implementing them is made difficult by the great number of derogations that exist;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas technical measures need also to be applicable in the Mediterranean
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q a (new) Qa. whereas in European waters, and in particular in the Mediterranean, it is vital that Member States establish the necessary measures and cooperate to identify those citizens responsible for IUU fishing, thereby ensuring that applicable sanctions are imposed and border and ramp checks tightened.
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the reform of the common
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas the Mediterranean basin is very different to other EU fishing basins, since it is shared by third countries with conservation rules very different to those of Europe
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas the Mediterranean basin is very different to other EU fishing basins,
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas the multiannual plans adopted between 2002 and 2009 were not all e
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas the multiannual plans adopted between 2002 and 2009 were not all equally effective
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S a (new) Sa. whereas negotiations with those countries must be part of efforts to achieve sustainability;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Recital T source: 569.779
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2015-11-17Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
2015-11-11Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees |
|
| activities/1/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
2015-10-21Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2015-12-10T00:00:00New
2015-11-10T00:00:00 |
2015-07-17Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
2015-07-10Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
2015-07-08Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
| activities/1 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
2015-05-09Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|