25 Amendments of Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK related to 2019/2177(INI)
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas a certain level of unwanted by-catch and discarding is unavoidable, just like in almost any other economic activity on land and at sea; whereas unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantial waste of natural resources and have an adverse effect on the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and marine ecosystems and the financial viability of fisheries; whereas the EU landing obligation constitutes a waste of perfectly edible fish that is now being dumped in ports, contributing to emptying the seas, instead of returned to the sea, which not only disrupts the trophic chain but also deprives marine and avian species that nourish from by-catches;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas discarding accounts for around 23 % of worldwide catches; whereas the historically high levels of discards in some EU fisheries in the mid 20th century have posed a serious problem to the long-term sustainability of EU fisheries and undermined the credibility of the Union’s fisheries policy;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas there is no reliable data on discards as the landing obligation has led to a loss of visibility of catches in some fisheries and circumstances that led to a degradation in the scientific advice and the quality of data;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas fishermen are suffering serious difficulties and economic losses stemming from the contradiction between Art. 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy and the requirements set out in social legislation such as the Directive 2017/159 implementing ILO C188;
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 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas undersized fish cannot be marketed for direct human consumption purposes and since many EU countries do not have fishmeal factories, the fish would be wasted; whereas bringing and processing unwanted by-catch onshore is too expensive, has no market demand, and would mean for unnecessary waste of food;
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 58 #
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 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the introduction of the landing obligation represents a major change in EU fisheries management – from recording landings to a system that records the entire catch – andwhich coupled with the introduction of the MSY policy has inevitably had a range ofhuge short- and long-term ecological and negative socio-economic impacts;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recognises that the MSY policy does not imply that there are no discards and discarding does not mean that the MSY could not be reached, it has actually been the case for many stocks, including by-catch species;
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 111 #
5 a. Stresses concern over the fact that shared stocks with third countries (in particular the United Kingdom) may not be subject to the same landing obligation provisions; stresses the need to seek alignment with third country’s regimes on major fisheries management objectives and principles in order to maintain a level playing field;
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 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is concerned about the lack of proper control over and compliance with the landing obligation and underlines its negative impact on sustainability; calls for better use to be made of new technologies and digital solutions developed in cooperation with the fishing sector and Member States’ authorities and for cooperation between the fishing sector and the Member State authorities to be strengthened in order to rapidly improve control;
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 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point b
Paragraph 12 – point b
b. implementing a marine spatial planningn area-based management approach in order to avoid discards by guiding fishers to areas where undersized fish are less likely to be present;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point e
Paragraph 12 – point e
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point f
Paragraph 12 – point f
f. adopting strategies to use unwanted catches other than for human consumption under the condition that it is feasible for the fishermen in economic and operational terms;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point h
Paragraph 12 – point h
h. using and developing artificial intelligence tools to increase selectivity and control in cooperation with the fishing sector and Member States’ authorities;
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;