18 Amendments of Catherine CHABAUD related to 2022/2003(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, states in recital 14 that ‘it is important for the management of the CFP to be guided by principles of good governance’. Those principles includeare further elaborated in the Regulation and especially in Article 3 highlighting decision-making based on best available scientific advice, especially pointing out the roles of Advisory Council broad stakeholder involvement and a long-term perspective’1 ; _________________ 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32013 R1380
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the European Green PactDeal and the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy include specific commitments and actions, among which is the establishment of a wider network of protected areas on land and at sea across the EU, with the expansion of Natura 2000 areas, and that the proposed EU Nature Restoration Act proposes to apply legally binding targets for nature restoration to all Member States for at least 20% of the EU’s land and marine areas by 2030, ultimately covering all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there are numerous cases of successful implementation of fisheries co-management within Member States, including in Spain (Galicia, Catalonia and Andalusia), Portugal (Algarve and Peniche-Nazé), Sweden (Kosterhavets)2 , the Netherlands3 , Italy (Torre Guaceto), France (île de Sein), France (CoGeCo project) and Croatia (Telašćica and Lastovo)4 ; _________________ 2 https://oceans-and- fisheries.ec.europa.eu/news/co- management-northern-bohuslan-fishers- and-conservationists-join-forces- sustainable-future-2022-03-01_en 3 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2 57943913_Co- management_An_alternative_to_enforcem ent 4 https://www.wwfmmi.org/?1715691/First- co-managed-fishery-area-adopted-by-law- in-Croatia
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Draws attention to the fact that fisheries co-management systems both embraces the sharing criteria of the Common Fisheries Policy, (CFP) ,integrating collective knowledge and encompassing any actor benefiting from a collective resource and the management principles of the CFP, contributing to the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 2 and 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that co-management has been proven to favour consensual decision- making between the administration, the sector and research bodies, which always act in accordance with the principles of the Common Fisheries Policy and other relevant regulations, applying the precautionary approach in all cases to ensure that resources are exploited in a manner that is fully sustainable on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield of the target species; underlines that this type of management and decision making has been an important factor for deploying successful conservation measures, such as MPAs and OECMs among others;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the fact that co- management systems can function at thedifferent levels of fisheriegovernment, as well as in cross border situations and covering different geographical areas, taking into account the environment in which they operate, thus applying a holistic approach; notes in this regard that co-management arrangements also could provide mechanisms for quota-swap arrangements;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that, as research bodies are directly involved in co-management systems, improved scientific data collection is ensured; it should be noted that this system makes it possible to generate data and knowledge that cannot otherwise be obtained given the close relationship between all the parties involved (administration, industry and researchers – the so-called triple helix), thus developing the capacity of all of them to use this information to generate rapid and effective responses to any issues that may affect fisheries; notes in this regard the importance that EU-funds can play in financing research and data gathering and that Member States have to ensure inclusion of funding possibilities in their national implementation of EU-funds;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises the fact that co- management contributes to the elimination of IUU fishing practices, as industry and administrations are involved and it is easier to identify malpractices and to combat them; including having appropriate and effective control measures and practices in place;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses that there is, moreover, a need in the currentorder to ensure better co- management systems for concreteto have clear legislative measures to pave the way forfacilitating all the specific aspects for well functioning co- management, such as the setting up of co- management committees and to speed up the process of implementing measures, as concerns that the legislative framework is currently unclear in most regionsn some regions is not currently sufficiently clear, which means that the requisite timeframe for their creation and implementation is in the long term, whereas solutions are needed in the short to medium term;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Highlights the specific role of Advisory Councils in ensuring stakeholder involvement in the EU- decision making process; encourages the Commission to further engage with the Advisory Councils and to ensure proper feedback in relation to their recommendations; asks the Commission to consider an annual report on how Advisory Councils recommendations have been taken into account;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Draws attention to the fact that there is no unified assessment of the cases where co-management has been implemented in the EU and in the world, which identifies the main drivers of this system; calls on the Commission to assess the examples of fisheries co-management in the above countries andUnion in order to identify best practices, especially on how to effectively involve stakeholders concerned in the decision making process, in order to support their progressive implementation in other fisherieof this mand in the regional fisheries bodies in which it participateagement method in other areas;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote, within the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), a commitment to co-management models for fisheries with adequate funding, using among others, elements such as Community-Led Local Development, Fisheries Local Action Group and calls for tenders to finance projects for research and data gathering;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Fisheries co-management – inclusion in the newfuture revision of Common Fisheries Policy
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Expects that the Commission in its upcoming communication on an Action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems and the report on the functioning of the common fisheries policy to come forward with initiatives on how to further encourage and facilitate co-management of fisheries resources;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Highlights the need to also develop cross boarder co-management for certain regions; points out in this regards the example of the arrangement that was set up between France, the UK and the Channel Islands for management of fisheries in the region, which after Brexit has been more centralised; reiterates its call for the Partnership Council under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the UK to consider different arrangements for cooperation in the waters of the Crown Dependencies; highlights, in this regard, that previous arrangements under the Granville Bay Treaty could provide a basis for future adaptations of the rules by the Partnership Council;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Stresses that co-management allows for a better consideration of knowledge and empirical data that fishermen gathers from their environment, and that in this respect, the development of participatory sciences must allow for transfer of this data and empirical knowledge to benefit the work of researchers; encourages the Commission to launch calls for tenders to improve the inclusion of this empirical knowledge in scientific work at all levels;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21 b. Insists on the need to fully implement the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, points out that this Convention creates the international obligation of involving the populations affected by the decisions to be taken in the decision-making process;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 d (new)
Paragraph 21 d (new)
21 d. Encourages the Commission to propose a management plan based and developed on the principle of co- management for the Channel sea-east and for the southern part of the North sea;