27 Amendments of Isabel CARVALHAIS related to 2021/2168(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
— having regard to the Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 28 April 2021 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2021/… of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual management plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, amending Regulations (EC) No 1936/2001, (EU) 2017/2107 and (EU) 2019/833 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2016/16271a _________________ 1a (EP-PE_TC1-COD(2019)0272)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
— having regard to the judgement number 1801790 given on July 15th, 2021 by the fourth chamber of the Administrative Court of Montpellier
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas objective 14.b of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals calls for providing “access of small- scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets”;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the STECF assessment of the social dimension of the CFP found that in 2020 only 16 out of 23 coastal Member States replied to the Commission’s request to inform it of the allocation method used; whereas according to STECF, several of those responses were of limited use as they contained only broad descriptions of the national fishing fleet or simply emphasised the intent of their allocations without outlining the ‘transparent and objective criteria’;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. Whereas according to STECF the Commission’s 2020 request to Member States to provide information on their allocation system included a question on impact assessment and only two Member States (Sweden and Denmark) reported conducting such an assessment;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. Whereas according to STECF Ireland is the only member state that is reported to cite Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 in its management rules and descriptions;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. Whereas very often the management of fishing opportunities is bureaucratic and distant from fishers and the stakeholders involved in the sector; whereas regulations are often complex and opaque and in many cases, policy consultations are not accessible to most fishers;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas some stocks are mainly targeted by differentparticular fleet types, but many others are targeted by both small-scale and large-scale fleets;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R a (new)
Recital R a (new)
Ra. whereas on November 10th, 2020 the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission have reached an agreement on the Regulation establishing a multiannual management plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, amending Regulations (EC) No 1936/2001, (EU) 2017/2107 and (EU) 2019/833 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2016/1627; Whereas such agreement was then voted down by the Council contradicting a decision already agreed with the other two institutions;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that fish stocks are a natural common goods thatpublic resource and so too are shares or rights to harvest them; Stresses in this regard that they should not be considered commodities and should be managed in a way that guarantees the highest long-term benefits for society and minimises the impact on ecosystems; Stresses also, in this regard, that no actor should be granted an indefinite, exclusive right to fish stocks that are owned commonly;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that in fisheries under quota management the problem of choke species has the potential to shut down fishing operations before the end of the season with potentially significant economic implications for fishers; underlines in this regards that a good quota system should include a fair degree of flexibility as it would allow fishers who need an extra quotas for a choke species and fishers who have available quotas to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Deplores the fact that the Member States are not transparent and are not making public what criteria they apply when distributing fishing opportunities; recalls that an objective allocation methods entails the clear and unambiguous description of well-defined allocation criteria including a clear description of the relative weightings of criteria or the conditions for their use in case of multiple criteria for allocation;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that transparent allocation criteria provides stability and legal certainty for operators; stresses therefore that information on the functioning of the system of fishing opportunities, including the method of allocation, should be easily accessible and capable of being understood by the general public so as to facilitate a consistent, rule-based allocation method that allows fora better scrutiny, less influence by particular interests and a more predictability for fishers;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls onUnderlines that quota shares represent the entitlement to a public resource; calls on in this regard the Member States to make their respective methods of distributing fishing opportunities and the final quota allocation of each producer organisation and each vessel publicly available through the establishment of a compulsory public register at the national level, in line with the applicable data protection legislation;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that the Commission, in its capacity of guardian of the treaties, has the obligation to guarantee the full respect of the prescriptions enshrined in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013; In this regard, calls on the Commission to ensure the correct application by all the member states of the binding transparency provision of Article 17 with regards to national quota allocation processes through an active and constant monitoring activity and, if necessary, to open an infringement procedure for those Member States that fail to comply with that requirement;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that producer organisations (POs) play an essential role in distributing fishing opportunities among the different vessels, yet relatively few small-scale fishers belong to POs, and even fewer small-scale fishers have their own dedicated POs limiting therefore their capacity to exploit this channel to access fishing opportunities;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the allocation methods smust involve all stakehould be developed in consultation withers in an interactive and collaborative manner and should ensure representation from all fleet segments, producers organizations, Cofradias associations, workers organizations, fishing communities and other relevant stakeholders,; considers that allocation methods should be based on the best available scientific advice, and should include notice periods to allow fishers to adapt;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Member States to design allocation systems in a way so as to guarantee simplicity, avoid obscure bureaucratic practices and, ultimately, allow operators and stakeholders to be able to monitor the allocation criteria and process;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the Member States have only marginally modified their fishing opportunity allocation methodsin general have not drawn a direct line between Article 17 and their national quota allocation systems; In this regards, notes that there are no recorded instances of member states changing their allocation methods in 2014 when the reformed CFP and Article 17 came into force, suggesting a minor or non-existent impact since the reform of the CFP in 2013;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that the use of transparent and objective criteria of an environmental, social or economic nature is an obligation for Member States under Article 17 of the CFP;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that the current allocation methods, exceedingly based on historical rights criteria, allow for a certain level of economic stability in the fishing sector, but, at the same time, contribute to reinforcing trends, such as economic concentration in the fishing sector and the difficulty of, that distort competition, erect barriers at the entrance and renders the sector little attractingve for new young fishers; considers, furthermore, that these methods do not provide incentives to fishers who implement fishing practices with a reduced environmental impact, do not provide fair opportunities to small- scale fishers and threaten their existence; in this regards, calls on Member States to adequately protect small-scale fisheries with substantial ad hoc quotas and guarantee that any future increase in quotas, due to good stock management or a successful recovery plan, is redistributed mainly among this segment of the fleet;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Calls on the Member States to incentivise operators, through their allocation processes, to establish and strengthen social dialogue with unions and workers’ organisations as well as to fully apply collective bargaining agreements in order to promote social sustainability and fair working conditions within the fisheries sector;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Members States, in line with Article 17 of the CFP, to use age criteria when allocatingallocate a fair share of the fishing opportunitiesy available to them, in order to support the entry into the business of young fishers on the basis of experience and age criteria as well as to those who decide to enter the sector for the first time in order to even entry barriers, correct market failures, support the entry into the business of young fishers and ultimately facilitate the much needed generational renewal in the fisheries sector;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to engage in more proactive work with the Member States to investigate ways to distribute fishing opportunities in line with the recommendations laid down inprovisions of Article 17 of the CFP, and to publish guidelines on the usecorrect implementation of the transparent and objective criteria of a social and environmental criterianature when allocating fishing opportunities;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Stresses the fact that the translation of the original Article 17 wording “shall use” into other languages may have weakened the legally binding imperative of this element inasmuch as in certain cases it has been translated to be suggestive rather than imperative; Stresses therefore the fact that the adoption of Article 17 into national law, particularly regarding the legally binding terminology, should be reviewed and updated where necessary; calls in this regard the Commission to address this issue within its upcoming report on the functioning of the CFP as well as in a possible future review of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission, in its upcoming report on the functioning of the CFP, to analyse the implementation of Article 17 by the Member States and make proposals on how to improve its implementation; in this regard, calls on the Commission to consider the establishment of a legal instrument aimed at introducing the obligation to list publicly the details of the criteria used for allocating quota among the different segment of the fleet and the beneficiaries of the allocations through a national transparency register; Calls on the Commission to also consider the setting up of a permanent mechanism aimed at monitoring the correct implementation of the transparency requirement and the correct balancing of social, economic and environmental obligations listed in Article 17;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Stresses that the EU is still missing a legislative tool in order to implement the ICCAT decisions taken during its latest sessions; Stresses with deep concern that such a normative void risks to endanger the allocation of important quota for the EU fisheries sector; Urges therefore the Presidency of the Council to come up with an alternative proposals to the agreement already reached between the parties that is able to correspondingly meet the position of the European Parliament;