54 Amendments of Isabel CARVALHAIS related to 2019/2177(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
— having regard to the plenary reports of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) (PLEN 20-01, 19-01, 18-01 and 17-01), and its reports 'Evaluation of Member States' Annual Reports on the Landing Obligation (for 2019)' (Adhoc-20-02), 'Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy' (Adhoc-20-01) and 'Evaluation of Joint Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation' (STECF-20-04),
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
- having regard to Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 of 19 December 2016 implementing the Agreement concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
Citation 5 b (new)
- having regard to the study 'Implementation of the EU fisheries control system by Member States (2014- 19)', requested by the PECH committee,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 c (new)
Citation 5 c (new)
- having regard to the studies requested by the PECH committee on the landing obligation and choke species in multispecies and mixed fisheries in the North Sea 1a, the North Western Waters2a and the South Western Waters3a, and the studies on the discard ban, landing obligation and MSY in the Western Mediterranean 4a 5a, _________________ 1aLanding Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries - The North Sea 2aLanding Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries - The North Western Waters 3aLanding Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries - The South Western Waters 4aDiscard ban, landing obligation and MSY in the Western Mediterranean Sea - the Spanish case 5aDiscard ban, landing obligation and MSY in the Western Mediterranean Sea - the Italian case
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 d (new)
Citation 5 d (new)
- having regard to the book 'The European Landing Obligation, Reducing discards in complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries', published in 2019,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 e (new)
Citation 5 e (new)
- having regard to the report 'A third assessment of global marine fisheries discards', published by the FAO in 2019,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas target 14.4 of Goal 14 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development urges the international community to effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science based management plans by 2020, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)
Recital -A a (new)
-A a. whereas the magnitude of annual discards in global marine capture fisheries is estimated to be 9.1 million tonnes, which represent 10.8% of the annual average catch of 2010-2014; whereas fisheries targeting tunas and other pelagic species had the lowest discard rates, while fisheries targeting crustaceans had the highest discard rates; whereas fisheries targeting demersal fishes produced the highest volumes of discards and fisheries targeting molluscs (excluding cephalopods) produced the lowest volumes; whereas annual global discards peaked at around 18.8 million tonnes in 1989 and gradually declined to less than 10 million tonnes by 20141a; _________________ 1a A third assessment of global marine fisheries discards, FAO, 2019
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A b (new)
Recital -A b (new)
-A b. whereas the aim of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy was to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, including the avoidance and reduction, as far as possible, of unwanted catches; whereas there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the implementation of the landing obligation has led to a dramatic reduction in unwanted catches;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas discarding is a common fisheries practice of returning unwanted catches to the sea, either dead or alive, owing to damaged fish, undersized individuals, reasons of marketability, lack of quota or catch composition rules; whereas before the introduction of the landing obligation, there was an obligation to discard undersized and over- quota fish;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the landing obligation leads to the discarding in port of fish which could be destined for human consumption or which, when returned to the sea, may contribute to the feeding of a range of scavenging species, from avian to mesopelagic and benthic communities;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas a certain level of unwanted by-catch and discarding is unavoidable, specially in mixed fisheries; whereas unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantial waste of natural resources and have an adverse effect on the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and marine ecosystems and the financial viability of fisheries;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas discarding accounts for around 23 % of worldwide catches; whereas the historically high levels of discards in some EU fisheries have posed a serious problem to the long-term sustainability of EU fisheries and undermined, calling into question the credibility of the Union’s fisheries policy;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the potential for choking in mixed fisheries remains a deep rooted and constant problem; whereas selectivity will not fully solve the problems in these fisheries and it will be very difficult from a technical point of view to improve selectivity in order to reduce catches of the relevant choke stocks without causing large losses of other marketable catches, thus creating serious economic difficulties for the fleets concerned;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as reformed in 2013, introduced the objective for the Union to gradually eliminate discards by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches as far as possible, and by ensuring that catches of regulated commercial species are landed;
Amendment 39 #
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 in certain cases by EU vessels in international waters, and forbids the use of undersized fish for direct human consumption;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas according to the STECF1a, no information has been provided on the implementation of the landing obligation for the long-distance fleets operating outside Union waters; whereas the LDAC highlighted that the landing obligation does not apply in practice to EU vessels fishing outside EU waters; _________________ 1aEvaluation of Member States' Annual Reports on the Landing Obligation (for 2019) (STECF-Adhoc-20-02)
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Recital F b (new)
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F c (new)
Recital F c (new)
F c. whereas several Member States suggest that legislation should be amended to allow fish under the relevant minimum conservation reference sizes which are subject to a landing obligation may to be used for charitable purposes;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F d (new)
Recital F d (new)
F d. whereas the implementation of the landing obligation is expected to result in a loss of income in the short term, with potential negative consequences for the socio-economic viability of the sector but some benefits could be expected in the medium and long term if the implementation leads to more selective fishing practices and improved stock status; whereas the effects of the discard ban should be evaluated from a multi- dimensional perspective 1a; _________________ 1aMonitoring the environmental, social and economic dimensions of the landing obligation policy, Frontiers in Marine Science, 2019
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F e (new)
Recital F e (new)
F e. whereas the European Commission has so far failed to report on the extent to which the reduction of discards has been achieved or to analyse the socio-economic impact of the landing obligation or the effects of its implementation on safety on board fishing vessels;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas up to five Member States provided no response to the Commission's questionnaire on the implementation of the landing obligation for 2019; whereas two of these states have failed to do so for the last three years;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
G b. whereas the implementation of the landing obligation depends on the extensive use of exemptions which, by their nature, are temporary and require annual review, which requires time and effort from decision-makers and the fishing sector;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G c (new)
Recital G c (new)
G c. whereas according to the Member States reports the number of specific studies or pilot projects to test more selective gears or avoidance strategies has been declining;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G d (new)
Recital G d (new)
G d. whereas the potential for chokes in mixed fisheries remains a deep rooted and ongoing problem;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G e (new)
Recital G e (new)
G e. whereas differences in control and enforcement of the landing obligation may result in an uneven playing field within the different fisheries and between Member States;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas several third countries and self-governing territories have established discard bans to different extents, including Canada, the Faroe Islands, Norway, Iceland, Chile and New Zealand-such as Canada, the Faroe Islands, Norway, Iceland, Chile and New Zealand- have established policies aimed at achieving discards reductions or partial discard bans, including selectivity improvements, spatial measures, quota related measures, economic incentives and monitoring and control measures;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
H a. whereas almost 4000 scientific papers have been published on discards, of which more than 3700 are related to industrial fisheries and less than 200 papers focused on small scale coastal fisheries;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Recital H b (new)
H b. whereas since about 1950 many marine species across various groups have undergone shifts in geographical range and seasonal activities in response to ocean warming and biogeochemical changes, such as oxygen loss, to their habitats, which has resulted in shifts in species composition, abundance and biomass production of ecosystems, from the equator to the poles; whereas the change in the distribution of fish stocks has an impact on future fisheries management and hence also on the implementation of the landing obligation;
Amendment 79 #
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; acknowledges, however, that since 2010 there has been an obligation to record discards in the logbook in application of the control regulation; regrets that, despite the introduction of the landing obligation, knowledge about discards is limited and the European Commission has admitted that the quantities recorded as discarded and the landed quantities of catches below the minimum conservation reference sizes are very low and it is extremely doubtful that they reflect the true quantities being caught;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Notes with concern that the increase on the number of precautionary TACs, in contrast with the reduction in the quantities of analytical TACs, shows that the availability of scientific information on the status of the stocks has not improved after the introduction of the landing obligation;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Regrets that the European Commission's annual reports on the state of play of the Common Fisheries Policy include very little information on the implementation of the landing obligation, without having so far managed to report on the extent to which the reduction of discards under the obligation has been achieved and without having analysed the socio-economic impact of the LO or the effects of its implementation on safety on board fishing vessels;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the introduction of the landing obligation represents a majorone of the greatest changes, and challenges, in the history of 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 and economic impactssocio-economic and ecological impacts, also in the food chains and in those species which nourished from catches discarded and previously thrown back into the sea;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Calls for the collection of socio- economic data on how the landing obligation impacts on the socio-economic viability of the sector, the remuneration system, the number of crew members, the workload, the working conditions and safety standards of fishers, in line with FAO and ILO recommendations;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 94 #
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, according to the European Commission and STECF, 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; Urges the Commission to reflect on the changes needed in the landing obligation, and submit a legislative proposal after the evaluation of the CFP reform that will be carried out by 2022 if appropriate, in order to better achieve its main objective of reducing discards and improving stocks;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that 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; welcomes the measures taken to date – quota swaps and quota pools for by-catch species – andbut stresses that these measures are mostly non-permanent and subject to negotiations between the Member States; insists on the need to further develop effective by-catch reduction plans with the aim of rebuilding vulnerable stocks;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Underlines the concern that shared stocks with third countries may not be subject to the same provisions on discards; stresses the need for progressive convergence with regard to the main objectives of fisheries management in order to ensure the highest standards for achieving good environmental status of shared stocks, sustainability of the fishing activity and the maintenance of a level playing field;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Highlights the problems posed by the landing obligation in mixed fisheries with the choke stocks; Emphasizes that choke situations will continue to persist and lead to catch limits and under- utilisation of available quotas, creating serious economic difficulties for the fleets concerned;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the potential and the need for the use of the exceptions (high survivability and de minimis) provided for in the regulation to facilitate implementation and counteract potential choke cases; recalls that reliable and accurate evidence and data needs to be provided and recommends that the process for granting exemptions should be streamlined, including better scientific data collection;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Stresses that the STECF has acknowledged that the quality of submissions to support the exemptions has generally improved since the first joint recommendations were submitted in 2014; Recognizes that providing data and information in support of the exemptions can be challenging due to the nature of the data required; Notes with concern, however, that the STECF has highlighted that there are many cases where the information and data supplied is not species and/or fishery specific and the same studies and assumptions are used to support multiple exemptions; stresses that the absence of species- and fishery- specific data and information makes it difficult to evaluate the likely impact of proposed exemption or whether the exemption meets the conditions for de minimis or high survival;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Recalls the failure in the search for alternative uses for landed material below minimum conservation reference sizes and unwanted catches due to the prohibitive cost to the fishermen of storage and transport of such catches1a; Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of amending the legislation to allow such catches to be used for charitable purposes as suggested by several Member States and the South Western Waters Advisory Council; _________________ 1a EUMOFA study on Market Outlets for Unwanted Catches (2020)
Amendment 113 #
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; calls on the Commission to continue to support plans to improve selectivity, including where appropriate by using incentives for the uptake of more selective gears;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes 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; Considers it necessary to continue research efforts to improve gear selectivity, avoidance strategies and handling of unwanted catches; Welcomes the proposed Mission Starfish 2030: Restore our Ocean and Waters and considers that a mission in the area of healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters will help develop solutions urgently needed and that have a direct impact on the fishing sector and the sustainable use and management of ocean resources;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is concerned about the lack of proper control over and compliance with the landing obligation and underlines its negative impact on; highlights that the obligation has generated a high number of delegated acts in the form of discard plans whose provisions complicate both the implementation and enforcement of the landing obligation and the compliance evaluation by the EFCA; underlines that the increasing complexity of the landing obligation makes it more difficult to achieve the objective of protecting and improving the sustainability of fisheries; calls for better use to be made of new technologies and digital solutions and for cooperation between the fishing sector and the Member State authorities to be strengthened in order to rapidly improve control; monitor, control and surveillance;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point a
Paragraph 12 – point a
a. using quota-based tools: the distribution of quotas in line with the expected catch composition, further use and optimisation of adjustments through quota swaps with other Member States and neighbouring third countries with which the EU shares stocks, moving towards permanent and not only annually renewable mechanisms after the setting of TACs and quotas, and the allocation of estimated discard share of quotas for fishers that opt to use more selective gear;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point b
Paragraph 12 – point b
b. studying the feasibility of implementing a marine spatial planning approach in order to avoid discards by guiding fishers to areas where undersized fish are less likely to be present, while ensuring that such measures do not result in the non-use of other commercially sized species;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point e
Paragraph 12 – point e
e. studying the feasibility of granting exclusive access to fishing locations or time periods in order to encourage selectivity;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point f
Paragraph 12 – point f
f. adopting strategies to use unwanted catches other than for human consumption, ensuring their operational and economic viability for fishers;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point g
Paragraph 12 – point g
g. developing a plans for unwanted catches and/orin the different fisheries and areas in order to better develop regional by- catch plans, involving Member States and the fishing industry and supported by the European Maritime and Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point h
Paragraph 12 – point h
h. using and developing artificial intelligence tools to increase selectivity and control in collaboration with the fishing sector and Member States' authorities;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point h a (new)
Paragraph 12 – point h a (new)
h a. progressively introducing the requirement for compliance with the same discard policy for imports of fisheries products from third countries in order to eliminate the comparative disadvantage and unfair competition for the European fleet, while moving towards better protection of global fisheries resources;