33 Amendments of Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA related to 2018/0074(COD)
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The objectives of the CFP are, inter alia, to ensure that fishing and aquaculture are environmentally sustainable in the long term, to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, to contribute also to supplying the Union market with food of high nutritional value, to reduce the Union market's dependence on food imports and to promote direct and indirect job creation and the economic development of coastal areas.
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Pursuant to Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, multi- annual plans are to be based on scientific, technical and economic advice. In accordance with those provisions, this plan should contain, as an objectives, the Maximum Sustainable Yield with quantifiable targets with clear timeframes, conservation reference points, safeguards and technical measures designed to avoid and reduce unwanted catches, as well as the meeting of social and economic objectives.
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The Commission should obtain the best available scientific advice for the stocks within the scope of the multiannual plan. In order to do so it concludes Memoranda of Understanding with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The scientific advice issued by ICES should be based on this multiannual plan and should indicate, in particular, ranges of FMSY and biomass reference points, i.e. MSY Btrigger and Blim. Those values should be indicated in the relevant stock advice and, where appropriate, in any other publicly-available scientific advice, including, for example, in mixed and/or multispecies fisheries advice issued by ICES.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Council Regulations (EC) No 811/200418, (EC) No 2166/200519, (EC) No 388/200620, (EC) 509/200721, (EC) No 1300/200822 and (EC) No 1342/200823 set out the rules for the exploitation of the northern stock of hake, hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and by the Western Iberian Peninsula, sole in the Bay of Biscay, sole in the Western Channel, herring in the West of Scotland and cod in the Kattegat, the North Sea in the West of Scotland and the Irish Sea. These and other demersal stocks are taken in mixed and/or multispecies fisheries. Therefore, it is appropriate to establish a single multi- annual plan taking into account such technical interactions. _________________ 18 Council Regulation (EC) No 811/2004 of 21.4.2004 establishing measures for the recovery of the Northern hake stock (OJ L 150, 30.4.2004, p. 1) 19 Council Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005 of 20 December 2005 establishing measures for the recovery of the Southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian peninsula and amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ L 345, 28.12.2005, p. 5) 20 Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2006 of 23 February 2006 establishing a multiannual plan for the sustainable exploitation of the stock of sole in the Bay of Biscay (OJ L 65, 7.3.2006, p. 1) 21 Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2007 of 7 May 2007 establishing a multi-annual plan for the sustainable exploitation of the stock of sole in the Western Channel (OJ L 122, 11.5.2007, p. 7) 22 Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multi- annual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock (OJ L 344, 20.12.2008, p. 6) 23 Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long- term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 20)
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) In order to manage demersal species it is necessary to take into account pelagic species. As the Choke Mitigation Tool (CMT) has shown, they restrict the activity of the demersal fleet due to the lack of quotas. The ICES Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice is working along the same lines.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) For a regionalised and more efficient management and application of the plans, the scientific advice and proposals regarding fishing opportunities could be drawn up in cooperation with the fishing sector in its forums with relevant scientists and within the framework of the MSY work. In this way it would be endorsed by the bodies that best understand its particularities, namely, the Advisory Councils. These could make tried-and-tested and scientifically evaluated proposals within the MSY in which they spell out their own exploitation, catch and safeguard rules.
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 b (new)
Recital 11 b (new)
(11b) The management plan must not limit itself to considering mechanisms for determining fishing opportunities in the short term, which would generate uncertainty and a lack of transparency for the sector.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 c (new)
Recital 11 c (new)
(11c) The application of fishing mortality ranges, which is supposed to allow fishing opportunities to be adjusted to cover the technical interactions of mixed fisheries, may lead to year-on- year fluctuations of the quotas adopted.
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 d (new)
Recital 11 d (new)
(11d) Authorising the approval of exploitation rules would allow a greater involvement of all interested parties to identify possible technical modalities, ensure their evaluation and select the rules according to the results.
Amendment 100 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) It is appropriate to establish the target fishing mortality (F) that corresponds to the objective of reaching and maintaining MSY as ranges of values which are consistent with achieving MSY(FMSY). Those ranges, based on best available scientific advice, are necessary in order to provide flexibility to take account of developments in the scientific advice, to contribute to the implementation of the landing obligation and to take into account the characteristics of mixed and/or multispecies fisheries. The FMSY ranges should be calculated by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), in particular in its periodic catch advice. Based on this plan they are derived to deliver no more than a 5% reduction in long-term yield compared to MSY24. The upper limit of the range is capped, so that the probability of the stock falling below Blim is no more than 5%. That upper limit also conforms to the ICES "advice rule", which indicates that when the spawning biomass or abundance is in a poor state, F be reduced to a value that does not exceed an upper limit equal to the FMSY point value multiplied by the spawning biomass or abundance in the total allowable catch (TAC) year divided by MSY Btrigger. ICES uses these considerations and the advice rule in its provision of scientific advice on fishing mortality and catch options. _________________ 24 EU request to ICES to provide FMSY ranges for selected stocks in ICES subareas 5 to 10
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) For the purposes of fixing fishing opportunities, there should be an upper threshold for FMSY ranges in normal use and, provided that the stock concerned is considered to be in a good state, an upper limit of that range may be used for certain cases. It should only be possible to fix fishing opportunities up to the upper limit if,and on the basis of scientificthe best advice or evidence, it is nscientific evidence so as to comply with the MSY in mixed and/or multispeciessary for the achievement of the objectives laid down in this Regulation in mixed fisheries or necessary to avoid harm to a stock caused by intra- or inter-species stock dynamics, or in order to limit the year-to-year variations in fishing opportunitie fisheries; this would require economic impact studies able to show whether the MSY is attained or not, since intra- or inter-species risks or harm can never limit the fishing of those species that are in a better state and limit the year-to-year variations in fishing opportunities, the TAC, because for this it would be necessary to draw up socio-economic studies to see the impact of the change. Therefore, the use of the higher range shall be undertaken by means of a justification based on one of the following three points: impact of the use of the higher range in relation to MSY, intra-species considerations and inter-species considerations.
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) In the event that the state of a stock is such that it cannot be exploited in the MSY, it should be possible for fisheries management measures, including measures to reduce fishing opportunities for this stock, to be taken so that the target fishing mortality consistent with the relevant FMSY ranges can be achieved in a gradual and incremental manner over a period of between three and five years, so that the socio-economic impact of such measures on the fisheries concerned can be limited.
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20 a (new)
Recital 20 a (new)
(20a) It should also be possible, during a closed fishing season for a particular species, for individual opportunities to fish that species to be established for specific fisheries, in order to take account of the limited or unavoidable nature of catches of this species in view of the specific socio-economic importance of these fisheries. Management should be carried out by vessel/occupation/profession, recognising the particularity of each fishery and the fact that it impossible to avoid catching traditionally fished species, even though their stocks are in a poor state or fishing for them is prohibited: sentinel fisheries, for instance, in which some vessels are allowed to catch small quantities, enabling them to go to sea and provide data to scientists to assess the evolution of the stock.
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
(21a) There are few data and/or little is known about sea bass and pollock stocks, but such data are necessary to improve knowledge about these stocks, and any decision on this matter should be based on the best scientific data.
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Where the Council takes into account a significant impact of recreational fisheries in the framework of the professional fishing opportunities for a certain stock, it should be able to set a TAC for commercial catches which takes into account the volume of recreational catches and/or to adopt other measures restricting recreational fisheries such as bag limits and closure periodsadopt measures seeking to restrict recreational fisheries such as bag limits and closure periods. Member States should establish minimum recreational fishing limits that do not compete with professional fishing and with measures aimed at controlling catches in order to avoid their commercialisation and unfair competition with the sector.
Amendment 130 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) In order to adapt to the technical and scientific progress in a timely and proportionate fashion and to ensure flexibility and allow evolution of certain measures, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of supplementing this Regulation as regards remedial measures and implementation of the landing obligation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations with the Advisory Councils affected during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Inter- institutional Agreement of 13 April 201625 on Better Law-Making25 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. _________________ 25 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Bearing in mind that fleets that pursue demersal fish catch large amounts of pelagic species that may even restrict their fishing capacity because they act as 'choke species', the Commission, with the participation of the Advisory Councils and scientific institutes, shall analyse the incidence thereof since pelagic species may affect the socio- economic dimension of fishing.
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. The plan shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the common fisheries policy listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, in particular by applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce MSY and to ensure the socio-economic sustainability of the activity, while generating economic, social and employment benefits.
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The plan shall contribute to the eliminasignificant reduction ofin discards, by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, and to the implementation of the landing obligation established in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for the species which are subject to catch limits and to which this Regulation applies.
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Those ranges of FMSY based on this Plan shall be requested from an independent scientific body that is recognised at EU or international level, such as ICES.
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary for the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 3 in the case of mixed and/or multispecies fisheries;
Amendment 196 #
(c) in order to limit variations in fishing opportunities between consecutive years to not more than 20%, except in those cases in which 'choke' situations or other situations which paralyse or significantly affect the activity of some fleets are alleviated.
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. In order to avoid a situation in which short-term management hinders the implementation of multiannual management and in order to encourage the participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process, it shall be possible to approve exploitation rules via regionalisation.
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. In accordance with Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the management of mixed and/or multispecies fisheries with regard to stocks referred to in Article 1(4) of this Regulation shall take into account the difficulty of fishing all stocks at MSY at the same time, especially in situations where this leads to a premature closure of the fishery.
Amendment 206 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The following conservation reference points to safeguard the full reproductive capacity of the stocks referred to in Article 1(1) shall be requested from an independent scientific body that is recognised at Union or international level, in particular ICES, based on this Plan:
Amendment 214 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notwithstanding Article 4(1), the target fishing mortality, in line with the ranges of FMSY referred to in that paragraph, together with the rapid replenishment of the stock or functional unit concerned to levels higher than those necessary to achieve MSY in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article, may be achieved progressively and in stages over a period between three and five years, insofar as this is necessary in the light of the economic, social and employment-related impact on the fishing activities concerned.
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. WTaking into account then scientific advice indicates thatignificant impact of recreational fishing in the framework of the professional fishing opportunities for a certain stock, the Council shall adopt measures seeking to restrict recreational fishing such as bag limits and closure periods. Member States shall establish minimum recreational fisherieing limits thave a significant impact on the fishing mortality of a particular stock, the Council shall take them into account and may limitt do not compete with professional fishing and with measures aimed at controlling catches in order to avoid its commercialisation and unfair competition with the sector. Where scientific advice indicates that recreational fishing has a significant impact on the mortality of a particular stock, gravely affecting the opportunities for the professional fishing sector, the Council shall ban recreational fisheriesing when setting fishing opportunities in order to avoid exceeding the total target of fishing mortality. All recreational fishing species shall be marked on board the recreational vessel.
Amendment 239 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1 of this Article, Member States having direct management interest in the North Western waters and Member States having direct management interest in the South Western waters may submit joint recommendations after consulting the Advisory Councils in accordance with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for the first time not later than twelve months after the entry into force of this Regulation and thereafter twelve months after each submission of the evaluation of the plan in accordance with Article 14. They may alsoshall submit such recommendations when deemed necessary by them, in particular in the event of an abrupt change in the situation for any of the stocks to which this Regulation applies. Joint recommendations in respect of measures concerning a given calendar year shall be submitted no later than 1 July of the previous year.
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The Councils may also be consulted by the Commission and by the Member States regarding other measures. The advice of the Councils shall be taken into account. These consultations shall be carried out without prejudice to consultation with STECF or other scientific bodies. The opinions of the Advisory Councils may be submitted to all the Member States concerned and to the Commission, as set out in Article 44, paragraph 3, of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013.
Amendment 252 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point 2
2. Those ranges of FMSY based on this Plan shall be requested from an independent scientific body recognised at EU or international level, such as ICES.
Amendment 254 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 2016/1139
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) in order to limit variations in fishing opportunities between consecutive years to not more than 20%, except in those cases in which 'choke' situations or other situations which paralyse or significantly affect the activity of some fleets are alleviated.
Amendment 255 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) 2016/1139
Article 4 a (new) – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 a (new) – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The following conservation reference points to safeguard the full reproductive capacity of the stocks referred to in Article 1(1) shall be requested from an independent scientific body that is recognised at EU or international level, such as ICES, based on this Pplan:
Amendment 259 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU) 2016/1139
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notwithstanding Article 4(1), the target fishing mortality in line with the ranges of FMSY referred to in that paragraph, together with rapid stock replenishment to levels higher than those necessary to achieve MSY in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article, may be achieved progressively and in stages over a period between three and five years, insofar as this is necessary in the light of the economic, social and employment-related impact on the fishing activities concerned.