21 Amendments of France JAMET related to 2019/2177(INI)
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantialregrettable waste of natural resources and have an adverse effect on the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and marine ecosystems and the financial viability of EU fisheries;
Amendment 27 #
D. whereas the ban on the practice of high grading (discarding of marketable fish), which was introduced in the EU in 2010, has been poorly implemented due to a lack of resources and outlets;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the discard rate is falling in Europe;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the landing obligation, which was phased in over a period of four years (2015-2019), makes it mandatory to land and deduct from applicable quotas all catches of regulated species in EU waters, or by EU vessels in international waters, and forbids the use of undersized fish for direct human consumption; whereas, however, an exception should be made for charitable purposes, in order to reduce food waste;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the landing obligation, which was phased in over a period of four years (2015-2019), makes it mandatory to land and deduct from applicable quotas all catches of regulated species in EU waters, or by EU vessels in international waters, andyet forbids the use of undersized fish for direct human consumption;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas small-scale fishing employs more operators and uses more selective gear, causing less environmental damage and playing a key social and economic role, as highlighted by the GFCM's SoMFi 2018 report;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Affirms the EU’s overall objective of ensuring the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and the protection of marine ecosystems; highlights that reducing discards and minimising unwanted catches is a public policy priority that has been shaped in response to concerns over accountability, conservation and the wasting of natural resources as well as the scientific need to fully account for all sources of fishing mortality;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that by increasing the bureaucracy involved, 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 – and has inevitably had a range of short- and long-term ecological andadverse economic impacts;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the progress made in terms of stakeholder cooperation and the steps taken to improve selectivity; notes, however, that implementation of the landing obligation remains low overall and that discarding is occurring at rates roughly comparable to the years before the landing obligation was introduced;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes thatIs worried by the concerns the landing obligation has raised concerns in the fishing industry, especially in mixed fisheries exposed to potential choke species cases and early closure of fisheries; welcomnotes the measures taken to date – quota swaps and quota pools for by-catch species – and insists on the need to further develop effective by-catch reduction plans with the aim of rebuilding vulnerable stocks;
Amendment 115 #
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 while pursuing 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; recalls, thus, that this landing obligation will, de facto, become pointless if it is demonstrated that it is unable to meet the aforementioned objectives;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that discard levels vary heavily from fisheries to sea basins, leading to the perception that the ‘one rule fits all’ approach mayis not be the optimal strategy to encourage fishers to become more selective; calls on the Commission to identifyonsiders that the main shortcomings aneed to proposebe identified and adapted and tailor-made solutions proposed for specific fisheries for each sea basin;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that the current legal framework provides the legal basis for Member States to actively work together to define selective fishing rules in a more flexible manner and to deploy scientifically-proven mitigation tools; calls on the Member States to enhance their cooperation through a regional approach, including through the involvement of relevant stakeholders and Advisory Councils, and to make use of the subsidies available to them to this end; reiterates the need to ensure a level playing field in the implementation of the landing obligation;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. WelcomNotes the results from recent scientific studies (e.g. DiscardLess, MINOUW and LIFE iSEAS) on innovative gear selectivity, avoidance strategies and vessel modifications to handle unwanted catches on board;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that efficient fisheries management systems, including being able to use all elements to properly implement the landing obligation and achieve the objectives of the CFP, need to be supported by accurate and reliable catch documentation and scientific data; calls on the Commission and the Member States to step up efforts to fully implement applicable EU legislation if needed and to take further action to ensure full documentation and data collection;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is concerned aboutNotes 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 and fo; hopes for better cooperation between the fishing sector and the Member State authorities to be strengthened in order to rapidly improve control;
Amendment 139 #
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 mitigation; recommends the following accompanying measures and management tools:
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point a
Paragraph 12 – point a
a. usingmaking better use of quota-based tools: the distribution of quotas in line with the expected catch composition, further use of adjustments through 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 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point f
Paragraph 12 – point f
f. adopting strategies to use unwanted catches other than for human consumption, or a plan to use them for charitable purposes in order to reduce food waste;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point h
Paragraph 12 – point h
h. using and developing artificial intelligence toolsinnovative tools, excluding camera devices, to increase selectivity and control;