36 Amendments of Stéphanie YON-COURTIN 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 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, to date, there is no legislationare few tools at European level governfacilitating the implementation of co-management mechanisms, even if in many of its Member States this system is being used to manage some of their fisheries, applying rules that fit in perfectly with the current Common Fisheries Policy;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas traditional management has not had the desired effects onhad diverging success rates in the Union in relation to improving stocks and maintaining employment;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
O a. whereas Fishers Organisations such as cofradias or prud’homies de pêcheurs, could have an important role to play in development and implementation of co-management systems;
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 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that in allmost of the cases of co- management there is a clear improvement in the sustainability of resources at environmental level, maintaining the economic and social benefits of the activity, as social and economic actors are directly involved in decision-making in co- management; notes that such co- governance systems have been found to be more resilient to shocks such as COVID and to reduce conflicts and improve fluidity in decision-making on fisheries management, fostering democratisation, transparency, trust and compliance with regulations;
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 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that the lack of specific Community legislation for theEU mechanisms for facilitating implementation of fisheries co- management systems hinders their use in theas been highlighted as a hinder for some Member States to use this way of management of fisheries in the Member States, as this depends solely and exclusively on the specific commitment of the competent authorities; highlights the importance of exchange of best practices between Member States and involved stakeholders as an important step to expand the use of co-management systems;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that this lack of Community legisle lack of proper tools such as fora for exchange on and develop of co-management models and regulatory measures facilitating its implementation makes it more difficult to implement models legallythe proper models in different Member States, despite the interest that the sector and administrations may show in applying them in a given area, and that opportunities are missed to implement co-management projects in more areas;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Asks the Commission for a regulatory framework on fisheries co- management, which is directly applicabto assess how co-management in fisheries could be encouraged and facilitated, including through regulatory initiatives, building on already existing successful examples in the Member States; and 3rd countries;
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 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points out that, in the absence of a clear legal framework,ong term tools and frameworks might jeopardize successful co- management of fisheries projects is difficult, as it involves medium- and long- term processes and a committed leadership, which is why European support for this system is essential;
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 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Advocates that the new CFP incorporo ensure thate co- management, which i is properly included, in future revisions of the CFP, as defined by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) as the resource management process in which the government shares its authority with users, each party being given specific responsibilities and rights with regard to information and decision-making; points out that such an inclusion must respect the principle of subsidiarity ensuring that it does not hinder all the different co- management models that are already in place and ensure that concerned stakeholders, such as fishers, authorities and scientific community are well consulted and involved in the decision making process;
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 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that globally, fisheries management is in many countries mainly based on a top- down state-centred approach, focused on industrial or large-scale fisheries, economic efficiency, environmental sustainability, and is guided by scientific research in marine biology; considers that thissuch an approach would not be valid for small- scale fisheries that need the involvedoes not fully cater for the specificities of regions, the wider community and different segments of the fishing community in fisheries management tools, and that it has not been the best approach with regard to semi-industrial and industrial fisheries globallysector such as small-scale fisheries, semi-industrial and industrial fisheries that would greatly benefit from the involvement of the fishing community in fisheries management arrangements;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that the choice of instrument used in the management of fisheries resources is largely up to governments, although experience around the world shows that various forms of partnership between government, industry and fishers strengthen management and produce good results; points out that the 1987 report ‘Our Common Future’, commonly known as the Brundtland Report, already concluded that in order to achieve sustainable development and therefore also sustainable management of natural resources, communities should have greater access to and control over decisions affecting their resources, always in cooperation with the relevant administrations and organisations (World Commission on Environment and Development, 19879 ); highlights in this regard the importance of applying the principle of subsidiarity to ensure that decisions are taken at the correct administrative level ensuring proper involvement of concerned stakeholders; _________________ 9 https://www.un.org/es/ga/president/65/issu es/sustdev.shtml
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Stresses the need for successful co- management systems to fully recognize and involve all relevant stakeholders, including appropriate administrative bodies, the scientific society as well as the industry, including Producer Organisations (POs) and where relevant, civil society and NGOs;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Reiterates that fisheries co- management already exists and has been successful in many of the known cases, and; notes that therse are legislative initiatives in this regardbased on different legal frameworks, both at local level, such as in Galicia, Catalonia and Andalusia in Spain, and at state level, such as in Portugal, Italy, France, Sweden, Croatia and the Netherlands; stresses that the lack of standardisation of regulationexperience and good examples at European level prevents this system from being applied in other regions and countries;
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 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18 b. Regrets that stakeholders are not involved in fisheries management with third countries, whether it is for quotas allocation, total allowable catch or technical measure; Insists that the Commission embraces its roles as the representative of the EU vis-a-vis third countries to propose different co- management models also in cross-border situations with thirds countries;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Emphasises that, with regard to the European Union, co-management – and similar concepts such as co-governance or participatory management – has been briefly describare mentioned in the preambles to various regulations at European level, but it has not been properly developed in their articles, nor has it generated sufficientEU legal instruments, but that there are no developed provisions on the issue; notes the need for a greater debate to promote the specific legislationmeasures needed for this fisheries management system, whichin order to profit from the benefit co-management already has provided its worth in ndifferent regions and in different cases;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that the success of co- management is determined by the existence of a multidisciplinary committee with a minimumensuring a minimum level of participation of stakeholders representing all interested parties in the management of a fishery, withincluding, where appropriate, the presence of social partners to ensure alignment with the global interests of society; is also of the opinion that the Commission should develop tools for them to be more of a facilitator in the setting up of these management systems;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses that, in the light of the examples studied, fishing co-management processes areof fisheries is more resilient and more adaptive than compared to many other fisheries management system and many examples have led to greater social cohesion, greater equity, improved stocks and improved profitability;
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 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)
Paragraph 21 c (new)
21 c. Stresses that the support of coastal fleets and the preservation of coastal ecosystems are among priorities of the Common Fisheries Policy; considers in this regard it necessary to have fisheries management as close to the local level as possible; notes that Article 5 of the Common Fisheries Policy, creating restrictions to the “Access to waters” principle is no longer sufficient to preserve these fleets, considers that co- management should be the norm for coastal zone fisheries management;
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;