22 Amendments of Francisco José MILLÁN MON related to 2019/2177(INI)
Amendment 16 #
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 undersized individuals, reas; whereas discards are normally made because fish are undersized (minimum size restrictions) of marketability, lack of quota or catch composition rulesr damaged and/or owing to insufficient fishing opportunities (lack of quota);
Amendment 22 #
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 sundermined the credibility of the Union’s fisherioues problem to the long-term suolicy; whereas in the run-up to the 2013 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform, public interesta inability of EU fisheries and undermined the credibility of the Union’s fisheries policy the issue of fisheries discards increased as a result of advocacy campaigns, particularly in the UK; whereas the UK has since ceased to be an EU Member State;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as reformed in 2013, introduced the objective for the Unionfollowing objectives: (a) to 'gradually eliminate discards, on a case- by-case basis, taking into account the best available scientific advice, by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, as far as possible, and by ensuring that catches are landed; nd by gradually ensuring that catches are landed' and (b) 'where necessary, [to] make the best use of unwanted catches, without creating a market for such of those catches that are below the minimum conservation reference size'.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas discard levels vary widely by region and species, with little or no discards in fisheries where most or all of the catch is of commercial value and exploited, as is the case in small-scale or traditional fisheries and fisheries for direct human consumption;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
Amendment 69 #
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 Zealanddiscarding unwanted catches is a phenomenon present in all fisheries around the world and is not a unique problem to Europe whereas the EU's waters are notable for their abundance of mixed fisheries; 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; whereas other third countries, such as the USA, have not banned discards since their fisheries legislation instead uses other approaches to reducing unwanted catches; whereas Norway and Iceland's discards ban has been adapted over 30 years in response to specific problems; whereas the impact of Chile's discard ban is not yet fully known because it has only just begun implementing it; whereas discards remain a major problem in New Zealand's fisheries management ;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
H a. whereas the principle of relative stability, first set out in the CFP Basic Regulation of 1983 and implemented by the TACs and Quota Regulation of the same year, lays down a distributional key of the TAC by Member State based on the allocation principles of historical catches (1973-1978), dependency as enshrined in the Hague preferences of 1976 and jurisdictional losses (1973-1976);
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Recital H b (new)
H b. whereas climate change, rising temperatures and sea and ocean acidification will significantly change the distribution of fish stocks, affecting the EU's future fisheries management and, inherently, implementation of the landing obligation as well;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H c (new)
Recital H c (new)
H c. whereas some voices within the fisheries sector are calling for an assessment of how much more suitable a model based on fishing effort rather than TACs and quotas would be for managing mixed fisheries in Western Waters;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H d (new)
Recital H d (new)
H d. whereas the Commission must submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on implementation of the CFP, including the landing obligation, by 31 December 2022;
Amendment 80 #
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, and ensuring their management in line with the objectives of generating economic, social benefits and boosting employment by helping ensure the availability of foodstuffs;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the introduction of the landing obligation represents a major changeparadigm shift in EU fisheries management – from recording landings, and even obliging discards at times, to a system that records the entire catch – and has inevitably had a range of far-reaching short- and long- term ecological and economic impacts; asks the Commission to collect data and assess the socio-economic impact of the landing obligation;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Stresses that effective implementation of discard-reduction policies entails more than merely strengthening oversight of compliance with the landing obligation and, crucially, requires the involvement of fishermen and other stakeholders in devising and implementing policies, thus fostering a culture of compliance and gradual changes in landing obligation rules over time, following a measured and adaptable approach;
Amendment 97 #
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 many fishermen do not understand the objectives and the process of implementation of the landing obligation remains low overall aand question its legitimacy, which tends that discarding is occurring at rates roughly comparable to the years before the landing obligation was introducedo hamper compliance; deplores the fact that that there are no reliable data on the volume of discards;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the landing obligation has raised and continues to raise serious concerns in both 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 – and insist and the scientific community; points out that the fisheries sector's causes of concern are rising operating costs, the lack of adequate infrastructure at ports and the absence of simple and effective technical solutions to increase selectivity without jeopardising the economic viability of fishing (economic obstacles), the widely held view that fish stocks are largely mixed and that it is very difficult to avoid unwanted catches and that the landing obligation is having unforeseen consequences oin the need to further develop effective by-catch reduction marine food chain (ecological obstacles) and the lack of incentives for complians with the aim of rebuilding vulnerable stocksce provided by the authorities (institutional obstacles);
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes with concern, furthermore, that mixed fisheries are vulnerable to possible cases of species choking and the early closure of fisheries as a result of the landing obligation; deplores that the measures taken thus far – quota exchanges and quotas for by-catch species – have proved insufficient to address the problem; urges the Commission and the Council, in particular, to remove by-catch species which are under no conservation risk (deep-sea species such as sea bream or black scabbardfish for example) from the list of stocks subject to TACs;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Is concerned that the progressive reduction of certain flexible arrangements, such as the 'de minimis' exemption, may cause or aggravate the choking effect and lead to the closure of fisheries; stresses the need to continue developing effective by-catch reduction schemes in less selective fisheries such as pelagic trawling grounds;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that efficient fisheries management systems, including being able to use all elements to properly implement the landing obligation and achieve the objectives of the CFP, need to be supported by accurate and reliable catch documentation and scientific data; calls on the Commission and the Member States to step up efforts to fully implement applicable EU legislation if needed and to take further action to ensure full documentation and data collection, in a manner proportionate to their fishing capacity for the small-scale coastal fleet;
Amendment 127 #
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 sustainability; 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; urges the Commission and national fisheries control authorities to favour voluntary and incentive-linked schemes over mandatory ones whenever the use of new technologies to monitor the landing obligation could potentially infringe the privacy of crews or the business secrecy of operators;
Amendment 142 #
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 of adjustments through quota swaps with other Member Statescarried out in a swift, flexible and efficient manner (in order to avoid under- utilisation of quotas in the Union) and the allocation of estimated discard share of quotas for fishers that opt to use more selective gear;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the Commission, the Committee of Regions, the European Social and Economic Committee and the governments of the Member States.