17 Amendments of Annalisa TARDINO related to 2019/2158(INI)
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is concerned about the negative long-term impact that offshore wind turbines have on ecosystems, bird migration flows, fish stocks and biodiversity, and consequently on fisheries as a whole, over their life cycle, from construction through operation and decommissioning;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the large-scale roll-out of offshore wind farms (OWFs) risks harming the physical functioning of the sea basin, leading to potential direct, indirect or induced effects, in particular sea and air currents, which might contribute to a mixing of the stratified water column and consequently influence the nutrient cycle, wave generation, tidal amplitudes and bedload sediment transport, while infrasonic noise from rotating blades could chase fish away from OWFs, and electromagnetic fields from underwater cables, as well as underwater noise from pile driving, could have severe negative impacts on marine life; as a result, inter alia, of maintenance activities and the consequent risk that pollutants (paint or sand) or copper may be dispersed owing to wear on turbine bearings.
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that potential artificial reef effects are limited to the operational phase of an offshore wind turbine and that decommissioning may make any benefits temporary and very costly;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that the visual impact would have a significant effect on the coastline, taking into account the warning lights on turbines, among other factors, and this visual impact, together with the noise impact, would drive away both birds and fish;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. States that OWFs can have an impact on fisheries by changing the spatial distribution and abundance of commercially fished marine species as well as through their closure for safety reasons or the imposition of a change in fishing activity or method, for example from active to passive;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that small-scale fishing enterprises will be particularly affected by displacement as they, suffering socio-economic damage to their activities, especially coastal communities, whose fishers may not have the capacity to move to fishing grounds further afield or to change fishing method;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that small-scale and coastal fishing enterprises will be particularly affected by displacement as they may not have the capacity to move to fishing grounds further afield or to change fishing method;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that overlap analysis of offshore renewables and fisheries suggests a sharp increase in special conflict potential in European waters over the coming years as further space would be taken away from fisheries in areas already subject to other constraints;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that today, fishing activities (active or passive) in OWFs are limited or prohibited in most Member States, thus reducing the authorised fishing area;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is concerned about the fact that fishers tend to avoid fishing in OWFs even if access is permitted because of the risk of accidental damage, snagging and loss of fishing gear, and that consequently the fear of potential exposure to prosecution is a source of concern that hinders co- existence and reduces the authorised fishing area, particularly for small-scale coastal fishing;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Expresses concern about the safety of shipping and maritime transport owing to the lengthening of routes, which is not only dangerous for fishers but also has repercussions on pollution;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that the decommissioning of offshore wind turbines must neither generate enduring environmental impacts for the ecosystem created nor pose safety risks to fishing vessels due to any remaining sub-seabed infrastructure;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Points out that the materials used in wind farms are often difficult to dispose of and that construction projects must provide for the proper recycling of materials, along with regular ex ante and ex post environmental, social and economic impact assessments;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. States that maritime spatial planning must play a key role, taking into account the specific characteristics of every marine area, and has to put greater emphasis on the assessment of achieving co-location options, which is of the utmost importance in achieving a win- win situation for both sustainable fisheries and the offshore energy sector;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that effective and early stakeholder consultation and participation, proper socio-economic impact assessments, the creation of transparent guidelines and the payment of compensation, particularly to small-scale coastal fisheries affected by the proximity of wind farms, could alleviate the potential for conflict and create a level playing field between fisheries and offshore renewables;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that further EU legislation might be required in case Member States’ maritime spatial planning does not guarantee the fair inclusion of fisheriesMember States need to be given support for the fair inclusion of fisheries in their maritime spatial planning;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that further EU legislation mightwill be required in case Member States’ maritime spatial planning does not guarantee the fair inclusion of fisheries;