21 Amendments of Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK related to 2021/2168(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12
Citation 12
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
Citation 13
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14
Citation 14
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)
Citation 14 a (new)
— Having regard to the 2020 report of the Working Group on Electric Trawling, volume 2, number 37 of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the ICES Special Advice of 20 May 2020, entitled 'Request from the Netherlands regarding the impacts of pulse trawling on the ecosystem and environment from the sole (Solea solea) fishery in the North Sea';
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas electric pulse fishing, a proven selective and less environmentally harmful fishing technique, was initially proposed by the Commission but has nevertheless been banned;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the STECF assessment of the social dimension of the CFP found that in 2020 only 16 out of 23 coastal Member States replied to the Commission’s request to inform it of the allocation method used;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that the EU share of wild caught fish and sustainable aquaculture products should be increased in the food supply for the EU population, as they have a small ecological footprint and make an important contribution to a healthy and sustainable diet as indicated by the EC; also notes that stocks in the North-East Atlantic Ocean are managed sustainably and caught according to maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Deplores the factStates that thsome Member States are notshould improve transparentcy and are not making public what criteria they apply when distributing fishing opportunities;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that transparent allocation criteria should provides stability and legal certainty for operators;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that producer organisations play an essential role in distributing fishing opportunitiesquota among the different vessels;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that very fewsome Members States use criteria of an environmental, social or economic nature to distribute fishing opportunities and that, if used, they do not have much weight in the final distribution;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that the use of criteria of an environmental, social or economic nature is not an obligation for Member States under Article 17 of the CFP;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that the current allocation methods allow for a certain level of economic stability in the fishing sector, but contribute to reinforcing trends such as economic concentration in the fishing sector and the difficulty of attracting new young fishers; considers, furthermore, that these methods do notcould provide incentives to fishers who implement fishing practices with a reduced environmental impact, do notand to provide fair opportunities to small- scale fishers and threatento ensure their existence;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that using criteria of a social or environmental nature when allocating fishing opportunities is necessary in order to fullycould help to achieve the objectives set out in the CFP, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Considers sustainability and selectivity to be the guiding principles of the European institutions when it comes to fisheries policy, irrespective of scale in the fisheries sector; recalls the low environmental impact of electric pulse fishing, which is also recognised by ICES;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to ensure that eachcreate incentives to Member State allocatesing fishing opportunities using a combination of environmental, social and economic criteria, while making sure the criteria are balanced according to local specificities and challenges that need to be tackled;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises that the allocation of fishing opportunities to operators with a lower environmental impact and a better history of compliance willmay contribute to restoring fish populations to a sustainable level and improve biodiversity protection;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Members States, in line with Article 17 of the CFP, to useconsider using age criteria when allocating the fishing opportunities available to them, in order to support the entry into the business of young fishers;