2015/2092(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. believes that minimum conservation reference sizes should be established according to the maturity size of the species, with the aim of ensuring the protection of juveniles of marine organism and allowing every individual to spawn at least once before capture

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital T

~~T. whereas CFP reform introduced landing requirements while failing to do anything to make the TAC and quota systems less inherently rigid;~~deleted

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital T

T. whereas CFP reform introduced landing requirements ~~while failing to do anything to make the~~ and the maximum sustainable yield objective requiring that annual fishing opportunities (TACs) and quota ~~systems less inherently rigid;~~s must necessarily respect scientific advice.

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital T

T. whereas CFP reform introduced landing requirements ~~while failing to do anything to make the TAC and quota systems less inherently rigid~~and foresees a range of flexibility, exceptions and financial support under the EMFF;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital T

T. whereas CFP reform introduced landing requirements while failing to do anything to make the TAC and quota systems less inherently rigid, which has led to significant problems for the European fisheries sector as a whole, and family- based businesses in particular;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital U

U. whereas difficulties in implementing the discard ban in mixed fisheries are likely to arise with 'choke' species; whereas the multiannual plans should therefore seek to promote instruments, such as fishing effort regulation, that are unconstrained by the rigidities of the TAC and quota system, thereby helping to ensure maximum sustainable yield and improve the economic performance of fleets at a given fishing mortality rate;deleted

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital U

U. whereas difficulties in implementing the discard ban in mixed (demersal) fisheries are likely to arise with ‘choke’ species; whereas the multiannual plans should therefore seek to ~~promote instruments, such as fishing effort regulati~~explicitly use the scientifically established ranges of MSY fishing mortality and focus on, th~~at are unconstrained by the rigiditi~~e primary target species in order to mitigate the potentially severe consequences of the current TAC and quota system~~, t~~. where~~by helping to ensure maximum sustainable yield and impro~~as consideration could also be given t~~he economic performance of fleets at a given fishing mortality rate~~o bringing together bycatches in a combined TAC;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital U

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital U

U. whereas difficulties in implementing the discard ban in mixed fisheries ~~are likely to~~will inevitably arise with 'choke' species; whereas the multiannual plans should therefore seek to promote instruments, such as fishing effort regulation, that are unconstrained by the rigidities of the TAC and quota system, thereby helping to ensure maximum sustainable yield and improve the economic performance of fleets at a given fishing mortality rate;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital U

U. whereas difficulties in implementing the ~~discard ban in mixed fisheries~~landing obligation are likely ~~to arise~~ with 'choke' species; ~~whereas~~and therefore the multiannual plans should ~~therefore seek to promote instruments, such as fishing effort regulation, that are unconstrained by the rigidities of the TAC and quota system, thereby helping to ensur~~incorporate instruments able to help achieve the aim of restoring and maintaining populations of fishery species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield and improve the economic performance of fleets at a given fishing mortality rate;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital U

U. whereas difficulties in implementing the ~~discard ban in mixed fisheries are likely to arise with 'choke' species~~landing obligation that arise with 'choke' species can be facilitated through the flexibilities and exemptions provided in the CFP; whereas the multiannual plans should ~~therefore~~also seek to promote instruments, such as ~~fishing effort regulation, that are unconstrained by the rigidities of the TAC and quota system~~regulating the exploitation rate through improved gear selectivity, time and area closure and sustainable, low impact fishing practices, thereby helping to ensure maximum sustainable yield and improve the economic performance of fleets at a given fishing mortality rate;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the main changes ~~introduced under~~of the 2013 CFP ~~reform also~~ include discard elimination and regionalisation;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital U

U. whereas difficulties in implementing the ~~discard ba~~landing obligation in mixed fisheries are likely to arise with 'choke' species; whereas the multiannual plans should therefore seek to promote a number of instruments, such as fishing effort regulation, ~~that are unconstrained by the rigidities of the TAC and quota system,~~ thereby helping to ensure maximum sustainable yield and improve the economic performance of fleets at a given fishing mortality rate;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital V

~~V. whereas, following the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has joint legislative powers with regard to fisheries, aside from TACs and quotas;~~deleted

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital V

V. whereas, following the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has joint legislative powers with regard to fisheries~~, aside from TACs and quotas~~;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital W

~~W. whereas it has, since 2009, been unable to adopt any multiannual plan, proposals having remained deadlocked in Council;~~deleted

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital X

X. whereas, within the inter-institutional task force on multiannual plans, the co- legislators recognised the importance of working together on the multiannual plans, so as to find practical solutions, despite differences regarding interpretation of the legal framework provisions;deleted

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital Z

Z. whereas~~, within the inter-institutional taskforce on multiannual plans,~~ a maximum sustainable yield ~~targe~~limit and deadline for achieving it, ~~a conserva~~precautionary safeguard trigger mechanism, a minimum target biomass, a mechanism for adapting to unforeseen changes in best available scientific ~~thinking~~advice and a review clause were identified as the elements common to future multiannual plans;

Amendment 116 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital Z

Z. whereas, ~~within the inter-institutional taskforce on multiannual plans, a~~an exploitation rate under the maximum sustainable yield ~~targe~~limit and deadline for achieving it, a ~~conserva~~precautionary safeguard trigger mechanism~~, a mechanism for adapting to unforeseen changes in scientific thinking~~ to protect against perturbations in the fishable biomass, a minimum target biomass above level capable to produce MSY, a mechanism for adapting to the best available science and a review clause were identified as the elements common to future multiannual plans;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include high and stable yields, something which must be reflected in annual Council decisions regarding fishing opportunities in the light of the latest scientific intelligence; whereas these annual decisions should be strictly confined to the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should as far as possible seek to avoid large fluctuations in this respect;deleted

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include high and stable yields while maintaining stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, something which must be reflected in annual Council decisions regarding fishing opportunities in the light of the latest scientific intelligence; whereas these annual decisions should be strictly confined to the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should as far as possible seek to avoid large fluctuations in this respect;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include ~~high and stable yields~~long-term stable yields in accordance with best available scientific advice, something which must be reflected in annual Council decisions regarding fishing opportunities in the light of the ~~latest~~best available scientific ~~intelligen~~advice; whereas these annual decisions should be strictly confined to the allocation of fishing opportunities~~, and should as far as possible seek to avoid large fluctuations in this respect~~;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the main changes introduced under the 2013 CFP reform also include ~~discard elimin~~the landing obligation and regionalisation;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include ~~high~~long-term and stable yields, something which must be reflected in annual Council decisions regarding fishing opportunities in the light of the latest scientific ~~intelligen~~advice; whereas these annual decisions should be strictly confined to the allocation of fishing opportunities, and sh~~ould as far as possible seek~~all seek to achieve the maximum sustainable yield by 2015 where possible and on a progressive incremental scale at the latest by 2020 for all stocks and to avoid large fluctuations in this respect;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include ~~high and~~long-term stable yields following scientific advice, something which must be reflected in annual Council decisions regarding fishing opportunities in the light of the latest scientific ~~intelligen~~advice; whereas these annual decisions should be strictly confined to the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should a~~s far as possible seek to avoid large fluctuations in this respect;~~chieve the maximum sustainable yield.

Amendment 122 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital AD

~~AD. whereas progress has been made with the multi-annual plan for the Baltic, the Council having agreed to work jointly with the EP on the adoption of fishing mortality targets;~~deleted

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AD

~~AD. whereas progress has been made with the multi-annual plan for the Baltic, the Council having agreed to work jointly with the EP on the adoption of fishing mortality targets;~~deleted

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AD

~~AD. whereas progress has been made with the multi-annual plan for the Baltic, the Council having agreed to work jointly with the EP on the adoption of fishing mortality targets;~~deleted

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AD

AD. whereas progress has been made with the multi-annual plan for the Baltic, the Council having agreed to work jointly with the EP, on the basis of Article 43(2) TFEU, on the adoption of fishing mortality targets;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AE

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AE

AE. whereas, in the absence of multiannual plans, minimum conservation reference sizes may be modified under discard plans adopted by the Commission in delegated acts ~~on the recommendations of the Member States concerned~~;

Amendment 128 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital AE

AE. whereas, in the absence of multiannual plans, minimum conservation reference sizes may be modified under discard plans adopted by the Commission in delegated acts on the recommendations of the Member States concerned as far as the protection of juveniles of marine organisms is ensured and scientific scrutiny is followed;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AF

AF. whereas discard plans will play an essential role in view of the changes in fishing techniques and hence fishing mortality and individual spawning biomass, both quantifiable objectives under the multiannual plans, possibly brought about by modifications in minimum conservation sizes; whereas, modification of minimum sizes though delegated acttechnical measures will be used for reducing discards and implementation of the MSY approach; whereas the discard plans wcould ~~mean changing the principal parameters of the multiannual plans from the outside~~play an essential role in supporting the discard ban;

Amendment 13 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas ~~the main~~important changes introduced under ~~the 2013 CFP reform also include discard elimin~~Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 also include the landing obligation and regionalisation;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AG

~~AG. whereas the co-legislators intended these~~ delegated ~~acts to be of a transitional nature, under no circumstances applying for over three years;~~

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AH

AH. whereas, for the same species, minimum conservation reference sizes may vary from one area to another in order to take into account the specific nature of the ~~fisher~~species and ~~the fishing gear employed~~fisheries; whereas, whenever possible, horizontal decisions for all areas are desirable in order to facilitate monitoring;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AH

AH. whereas, for the same species, minimum conservation reference sizes may vary from one area to another in order to take into account the specific nature of the ~~fisher~~species and the fish~~ing gear employed~~eries; whereas, whenever possible, horizontal decisions for all areas are desirable in order to facilitate monitoring;

Amendment 133 #

João FERREIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Supports a change to the current institutional framework, which gives the EU sole responsibility for the management of living marine resources, to allow broad decentralisation and local management, firmly rooted in scientific knowledge, which takes account of the enormous diversity of the sector within the EU (as regards stocks, fleets, fishing techniques and fisheries) and which is able to involve the sector in the setting and implementation of policies;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that, in order to ensure the implementation of the CFP objectives, future technical measures should be simplified, contained in a clearly structured legal framework and based on a solid scientific ~~approach~~data;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that future technical measures should be simplified, contained in a clearly structured legal framework and based on a solid scientific approach as well as meeting cultural and economic criteria;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that future technical measures should be simplified in order to remove any contradiction and/or duplication, rational, contained in a clearly structured legal framework and based on a solid scientific approach reviewed by peers;

Amendment 137 #

Werner KUHN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a Considers it necessary to compile a comprehensive list summarising all technical measures currently in force, in order to obtain a better overview of possible simplifications and deletions in relation to future technical measures;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that technical measures must be reviewed in a bid to simplify and standardise current rules, improve the scientific base and make it more consistent and more acceptable to the fisheries sector;deleted

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that technical measures must be reviewed in a bid to simpl~~ify and standardise~~ement the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, simplify current rules, and improve the scientific base ~~and make it more consistent and more acceptable to the fisheries sector~~;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas ~~the main changes~~important changes were also introduced under the 2013 CFP reform a~~lso include discard elimination and regionalisation~~s the landing obligation and regionalisation; whereas the EMFF foresees financial support to adapt to the changes of the new CFP;

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that technical measures must be reviewed in a bid to simpl~~ify and standardise current rules, improve the scientific base and make it more consistent and more acceptable to the fisheries sector~~ement the objectives of the CFP, simplify current rules, increase the scientific base;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that technical measures must be reviewed in a bid to improve selectivity, reduce discards and the impact of fishing on the environment, simplify and standardise current rules, improve the scientific base and make it more consistent and more acceptable to the fisheries sector;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that~~, as far as possible,~~ technical measures should be adapted to the specific needs of each fishery and each region, thus helping to improve compliance by the industry concerned;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that~~, as far as possible,~~ technical measures should be adapted to the specific needs of each fishery and each region, thus helping to improve compliance by the industry concerned;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Maintains that the simplification and regionalization of technical measures should be always consistent with the real purpose of the technical measures regulation which is the minimization of unwanted catches and impacts on the marine environment;

Amendment 145 #

Aldo PATRICIELLO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making by being invited to put forward proposals through representative associations, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to use more selective fishing gear;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, especially within the context of advisory councils, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to use more selective fishing gear;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that, in order to m~~ake~~eet CFP ~~rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith,~~objectives fishermen must be more involved in decision making, ~~given incentives such as more~~with the inclusion of incentives and increased aid for innovation, and encouraged to use more selective fishing gear;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that, in order to ~~make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and~~facilitate the implementation of the CFP rules and to ensure compliance therewith, fishermen and other stakeholders must be more involved in decision making, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to use more selective ~~fishing gear~~measures; recalls the EMFF foresees financial support to accompany the fisheries sector in adapting to the new rules;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to ~~use more selective fishing gear;~~ convert fishing gear into gear that ensures selectivity.

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas Article 17 CFP provides that, when allocating the fishing opportunities available to them, as referred to in Article 16, Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. The criteria to be used may include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance, the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels. Within the fishing opportunities allocated to them, Member States shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, such as reduced energy consumption or habitat damage;

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, in particular within the RAC, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to use more selective fishing gear;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, given incentives such as, for example, more aid for training, innovation ~~and~~, equipment, and anything else that will encouraged them to use more selective fishing gear;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that, in order to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector and ensure compliance therewith, fishermen must be more involved in decision making, given incentives such as more aid for innovation and encouraged to use more selective fishing gear, both from a financial perspective and by means of legislative alignment;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Considers that the new legislative framework shall facilitate the further use of innovative fishing gears which have scientifically proven to increase the selectivity and simultaneously have a reduced impact on the environment;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Considers that innovation and research will need to be promoted to ensure that the CFP is properly implemented, in particular as regards the landing of discards, in order to increase selectivity and modernise fishing and monitoring techniques;

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Believes that the sustainable use of innovative fishing gear which has been proven to be more selective by independent scientific research should be permitted without taboo or unnecessary quantitative limitations, governed by legislation and – insofar as further research is concerned – given financial support,

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Considers it undesirable for the current state of derogations and percentage use limits for Member State fleets to continue insofar as this relates to the innovative, more selective fishing methods, such as electric pulse fishing;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Believes, in light of the above, that sustainable and innovative fishing methods which have increased selectivity, such as electric pulse fishing, should be permitted in full in the associated fisheries areas and in other areas, where possible, during the necessary revision of the technical measures;

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers it necessary to maintain the ~~co-decision~~ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins or for those are not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future; believes that measures adopted at regional level - through regionalisation - should be in line with the technical measures framework and coherent with the objectives of the CFP; considers that measures that need frequent changes shall be evaluated at regular periods on order to ensure they remain relevant purposeful;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers it necessary to maintain the co-decision procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins , or which are already covered by separate regulations, or for those are not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas artisanal fishing meets all of the objectives set in Article 17;

Amendment 160 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers it necessary to maintain the co-decision procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins, including the establishment of standards and objectives for technical measures, or for those are not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future;

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers it necessary to maintain the co-decision procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins or for those are not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future and believes that co- decision is unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

~~6. Believes codecision to be unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;~~Deleted

Amendment 163 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

~~6. Believes codecision to be unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;~~deleted

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

~~6. Believes codecision to be unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;~~deleted

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

~~6. Believes codecision to be unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;~~Deleted

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Believes codecision sometimes to be unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes, and that reasonable recourse to delegated acts makes it possible to meet this need of flexibility and responsiveness; recalls however that the EP retains the right to object to any delegated act, in accordance with the Treaty;

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Believes codecision to be unnecessary for measures adopted at infra-regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recommends that a clear, general European framework for the technical measures should be defined, setting out a limited number of major cross-cutting principles; believes that all rules not applicable to the vast majority of European waters should not be included in this general framework but instead come under regionalisation;

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Considers that any measure adopted at regional level should conform with the technical measures framework regulation and be coherent with the objectives of the CFP and Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC

Amendment 17 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas technical measures that have piled up over the years are currently so complex, diverse and disorganised, as to be frequently inconsistent or even contradictory, not to mention being difficult for those in the fisheries sector to comprehend;

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co-decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules, a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co-decision; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at regional level or subject to frequent changesdeleted

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co- decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules and definitions (including a list of prohibited gear and species), a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co- decision; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at regional level or subject to frequent changes

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co- decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules, a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co- decision; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at regional level or subject to frequent changes, such as a detailed indication of particular fishing practices or gear used in the area concerned

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co- decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules, a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co- decision; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at infra-regional level or subject to frequent changes

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co- decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules including common objectives and standards to apply throughout the EU, a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co- decision; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at regional level or subject to frequent changes

Amendment 176 #

Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Richard CORBETT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be ~~structured on three co-decisional axes and a four~~determined using the regionalisation ~~axis. The first three would comprise a~~ process and be basetd ofn common centralised rules, a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co-decision; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at regional level or subject to frequent changes; Measures shall be re- evaluated on a regular basis

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that ~~rules regarding~~ technical measures should be ~~structured on three co-decisional axes and a four~~determined using the regionalisation ~~axis. The first three would comprise a~~ process and be basetd ofn common centralised ruprinciples, a set of specific rules for the ~~larger~~ sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations~~, all off which would be adopted by co-decision~~; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at regional level or subject to frequent changes; Measures must be re- evaluated on a regular basis

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Underlines the need for the new framework of technical measures to read clearly, which will require a significant clarification effort; consequently requests that the existing technical measures, in particular Regulations 850/98 and 1967/2006, be revoked beforehand in order to bring an end to the piling-up of regulations;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Recalls that as regards delegated acts, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic regulation, Member States may, within a time limit to be set in the regulation on the technical measures, submit recommendations to the European Commission, and that the latter will not be able to adopt any act prior to the expiration of that time limit;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas technical measures are currently so ~~complex,~~ diverse ~~and~~, disorganised, ~~as to be frequently~~ inconsistent ~~or even~~, contradictory, ~~not to mention being difficult for those in the fisheries sector to comprehend~~incomprehensible and complex that they have produced no positive results or incentives for the sector and have made the sector mistrustful;

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers it necessary to assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio- economic implications for EU fleets of specific regulations based on technical measures, such as those concerning driftnets, incidental cetacean catches, the ban on on-board shark finning or deep- sea fishing;deleted

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers it necessary to assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio- economic implications for EU fleets of specific regulations based on technical measures, such as those concerning driftnets, incidental cetacean catches, ~~the ban on on-board shark finning~~ or deep- sea fishing;

Amendment 185 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers it necessary to assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio- economic implications for EU fleets of specific regulations based on technical measures~~, such as those concerning driftnets, incidental cetacean catches, the ban on on-board shark finning or deep- sea fishing~~;

Amendment 186 #

Norica NICOLAI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers it necessary to assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio- economic implications for EU fleets and for the local communities of specific regulations based on technical measures, such as those concerning driftnets, incidental cetacean catches, the ban on on- board shark finning or deep-sea fishing;

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Believes that the technical measures should include specific provisions on the use of certain fishing gear in order to protect vulnerable habitats and marine species.

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Believes that the technical measures should ensure that destructive and non- selective fishing gear is not used in certain regions, and that the general use of explosive and poisonous substances should be prohibited.

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Considers it absolutely vital that Member States also be obliged to carry out border and ramp checks on fishing activities, in light of the high number of instances of illegal fishing gear being used, and for sanctions to be strengthened in compliance with European policies to combat IUU fishing.

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the current technical measures are ~~currently so complex, diverse and disorganised, as to be~~complex and therefore difficult to understand and implement from the fisheries sector; whereas frequently there are inconsistentcies or even contradict~~ory, not to mention being difficult for those in the fisheries sector to comprehend;~~ions among the rules.

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)

8d. Considers it appropriate, as considered by the CFP, to reintroduce into the regionalisation measures an indication of the characteristics of fishing gear and its use, such as the length of nets, mesh size, maximum distance from the coast, nomination of areas or disembarkation ports, etc.

Amendment 191 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each, especially that of the Mediterranean, where Community decisions may have a significant impact on competition between European and third-country fishing fleets;deleted

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each~~, especially that of the Mediterranean, where Community decisions may have a significant impact on competition between European and third-country fishing fleets~~;

Amendment 193 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each, ~~especially that of the Mediterranean,~~ where Community decisions may have a significant impact on competition between European and third- country fishing fleets;

Amendment 194 #

António MARINHO E PINTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each~~, especially that of the Mediterranean, where Community decisions may have a significant impact on competition between European and third-country fishing fleets;~~.

Amendment 195 #

Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Richard CORBETT, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each ~~of the three main~~ basins, taking account of the specific nature of each~~, especially that of the Mediterranean, where Community decisions may have a significant impact on competition between European and third-country fishing fleets~~;

Amendment 196 #

Richard CORBETT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each~~, especially that of the Mediterranean,~~ where Community decisions may have a significant impact on competition between European and third- country fishing fleets;

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each, especially that of the Mediterranean, where Community decisions may have a significant impact on the recovery of fish stocks and ecossystems and on competition between European and third- country fishing fleets;

Amendment 198 #

Ruža TOMAŠIĆ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Considers that in case of technical measures which regulate the maximum number of allowed catch days, only days with the registered catch should be taken into account.

Amendment 199 #

Ruža TOMAŠIĆ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Considers that in accordance with the scientific definition and classification of fishing gear categories, it is necessary to split, for the Mediterranean basin, trawl nets and shore seines because the legislation which regulate trawl nets should not be identical with traditional coastal shore seines as they target mainly non endangered species.

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas, since 2009, legislative proposals regarding technical measures and multiannual plans have made little headway, partly on account of tensions arising between the European institutions concerning their respective decision- making powers under Article 43 TFEU with regard to Commission proposals in the case of the multinational plans and partly because of difficulties in bringing legislation into line with the Lisbon Treaty regarding the technical measures;deleted

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas t~~echnical measures are currently so complex, diverse and disorganised, as to be frequently inconsistent or e~~he complexity and diversity of technical measures as well as the fact they are spread across many different regulations and haven contr~~adictory, not to mention being difficult for those in the fisheries sector to comprehend~~ibuted to making implementation difficult for fishermen, which risks making fishermen mistrustful;

Amendment 200 #

Aldo PATRICIELLO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the discard ban which has been in force since 1 January 2015 and is in the process of being gradually applied to all types of catch by 2019, provisions regarding technical measures in areas such as catch composition must be sufficiently flexible to adapt in real time to progress in the fisheries and more selective fishing techniques;

Amendment 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the ~~discard ba~~landing obligation, provisions regarding technical measures in areas such as catch composition must be sufficiently flexible to adapt in real time to progress in the fisheries and more selective fishing techniques;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 203 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the discard ban, provisions regarding technical measures in areas such as catch composition must be sufficiently flexible ~~to adapt in real time to progress in the fisheries and more selective fishing techniques~~in order to provide more opportunities for the fisheries sector to implement innovations regarding selective fishing methods into practice;

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the discard ban, provisions regarding technical measures in areas ~~such as catch composition~~ must be sufficiently flexible to adapt in real time to progress in the fisheries and more selective fishing techniques;

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Believes that the landing obligation constitutes a fundamental change for fisheries, and that the technical measures therefore need to be adapted so as to allow them to implement and facilitate more selective fishing; recommends the following three measures in order to achieve this: - substantially modifying, or even revoking, the rules governing the composition of catches, - affording greater flexibility as regards netting, - making it possible to hold several types of gear on board;

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Takes note of the difficulties arising from the coexistence of the marketing standards laid down by Regulation 2406/96 and the minimum catch sizes; requests that they be harmonised by the new framework of technical measures;

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10c. Questions the importance of a management approach based solely on the minimum catch sizes in certain fisheries, especially in the Mediterranean; believes that it would be appropriate to supplement this approach with time-area measures relating to fishing effort;

Amendment 208 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that a review of technical measures must take account their impact in terms of not only resource conservation and the ecosystem but also fishing operating costs and profitability in socio- occupational terms;

Amendment 209 #

Ian DUNCAN, Peter van DALEN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that a review of technical measures ~~must take~~shall take into account their impact in terms of not only biological resources conservation and the marine environment but also fishing operating costs and profitability;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas technical measures are currently so complex, and diverse ~~and disorganised, as to b~~due to them being an accumulation of 30 years of fisheries legislation, they are frequently inconsistent or even contradictory, not to mention being difficult for those in the fisheries sector to comprehend and particularly difficult for enforcement agencies to monitor;

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that a review of technical measures must take account their impact in terms of ~~not only~~ resource conservation ~~but also~~marine environment and fishing operating costs and profitability;

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that a review of technical measures must take account their impact in terms of not only resource conservation but also fishing operating costs and profitability, with particular attention being paid to the impact on family-based businesses in the sector and associated market organisation issues;

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Believes that minimum conservation reference sizes should be established according to the maturity size of the species, with the aim of ensuring the protection of juveniles of marine organism and allowing every individual to spawn at least once before capture

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management, ~~foc7using to a greater extent on producer organisations,~~ thereby optimizing the results being sought by EU provisions;

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management, ~~foc7using to a greater extent on producer organisations, thereby optimizing the results being sought by EU provision~~by supporting the different organisational forms of fishing businesses;

Amendment 215 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management~~, foc7using to a greater extent~~ with the assistance onf producer organisations~~, thereby optimizing the results being sought by EU provisions;~~

Amendment 217 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management, ~~foc7using to a greater extent on producer organisations~~by making it easier to implement a sector-based approach, thereby optimizing the results being sought by EU provisions;

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Considers that incidental artisanal fishing in the inland waters of the States and Autonomous Communities must remain outside the TACs;

Amendment 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Believes that multi-annual plans are ~~being called on to play an increasingly significant role in the conservation of fisheries resources under the CFP, being~~ the most suitable vehicle for the adoption and implementation of specific technical measures at regional level;

Amendment 22 #

Norica NICOLAI

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the principle of regionalization includes the consultation of the Advisory Councils with the purpose of bringing the stakeholders closer to the decision making process and better evaluating the possible socio-economic impacts of the decisions;

Amendment 220 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Believes that multi-annual plans are being called on to play a~~n increasingly significant~~ vital role in the conservation of fisheries resources under the CFP, being the most suitable vehicle for the adoption and implementation of specific technical measures at ~~regional level~~the level of the different fisheries;

Amendment 221 #

João FERREIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Emphasises that multiannual plans should be framed within local management, giving national authorities a predominant role in setting them;

Amendment 222 #

Rolandas PAKSAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that the co-legislators must continue to seek agreement on multiannual plans ~~on the basis of th~~with regard to institutional competences under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and on the basis of the corresponding and respective case-law established by the EU Court of Justice;

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that the co-legislators must continue to seek agreement on multiannual plans ~~on the basis of the case-law establish~~and believes that the multiannual plans should provide the framework for fisheries stock management and be based byon the ~~EU Court of Justice;~~most recent and therefore accurate scientific and socio- economic evidence

Amendment 224 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Remo SERNAGIOTTO, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that the co-legislators must continue to seek agreement on multiannual plans on the basis of the case-law which is currently established by the EU Court of Justice;

Amendment 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific and socio-economic findings and be adapted to the evolution of stocks, as well as providing flexibility for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; notes that these annual decisions should not exceed the strict scope of the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should, as far as possible, seek to avoid large fluctuations thereof;deleted

Amendment 226 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best ~~and most recent scientific and socio- economic findings and be adapted to the evolution of stocks, as well as providing flexibility~~scientific findings and guidelines for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; notes that these annual decisions should not exceed the strict scope of the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should, as far as possible, seek to avoid large fluctuations thereof;

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific advice and socio- economic findings and be a~~dapted to the evolution of stock~~ble to ensure the implementation of the CFP objectives, as well as providing flexibility for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; notes that these annual decisions should not exceed the strict scope of the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should, as far as possible, seek to avoid large fluctuations thereof;

Amendment 228 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific a~~nd socio- economic findings and be adapted to the evolution of stocks~~dvice and be able to implement the objectives of the CFP , as well as providing ~~flexibility~~guidance for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; notes that these annual decisions should not exceed the strict scope of the allocation of fishing opportunities~~, and should, as far as possible, seek to avoid large fluctuations thereof~~;

Amendment 229 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific and socio- economic findings recognised by peers, and be adapted to the evolution of stocks, as well as providing flexibility for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; notes that these annual decisions should not exceed the strict scope of the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should, as far as possible, seek to avoid large fluctuations thereof;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the complexity of the technical measures and the difficulties arising, coupled with the absence of any tangible results or incentives under the CFP have contributed to making fishermen mistrustful;deleted

Amendment 230 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust, rational and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific and socio- economic findings and be adapted to the evolution of stocks, as well as providing flexibility for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; notes that these annual decisions should not exceed the strict scope of the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should, as far as possible, seek to avoid large fluctuations thereof; also believes that approximative approaches to quantification cannot be accepted;

Amendment 231 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Maintains that ~~it is necessary to devise~~progress must be made on future multiannual plans ~~for achieving m~~in order to ensure the sustainable management of fisheries and the goal to achieve Maximum sSustainable yYield for all stocks, including an advance timetable, a conservation safeguard trigger, a mechanism for adapting to changes in scientific thinking and a review clause;

Amendment 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Maintains that it is necessary to devise future multiannual plans for ~~achieving~~restoring and maintaining stocks at levels above those that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, including an advance timetable, a conservation safeguard trigger, a mechanism for adapting to changes in scientific thinking and a review clause;

Amendment 233 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Maintains that it is necessary to devise future multiannual plans for achieving and maintaining stocks above the maximum sustainable yield, including an advance timetable, a ~~conserva~~precautionary safeguard trigger, a minimum target biomass, a mechanism for adapting to ~~changes in~~updated scientific ~~thinking~~advice and a review clause; ;

Amendment 234 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, it would be advisable to find ways of regulating the fishing effort free of the rigidities of TACs and quotas;deleted

Amendment 235 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, it would be advisable to find ways of ~~regulat~~using the ~~fishing effort free of the rigidities of TACs and quota~~scientifically established ranges of MSY fishing mortality to set TACs and of focusing the attention of management plans on primary target species;

Amendment 237 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, i~~t would be advisable to find ways of regulating the f~~mproving selectivity and minimishing ~~effort free of the rigidities of TACs and quotas~~unwanted catches is necessary;

Amendment 238 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17 Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, it would be advisable to find ways of regulating the fishing effort free of the rigidities of TACs and quotas; and issues relating to their distribution amongst operators in the sector;

Amendment 239 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from ~~compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, it would be advisable to find ways of regulating the fishing effort free of the rigidities of TACs and quota~~the implementation of the landing obligation, the basic legislation foresee the possibility to adopt flexibility measures;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

Amendment 240 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, ~~it would be advisable to find ways of regulating the fishing effort free of t~~a balanced distribution of quotas should be established between fishe ri~~gidities of TACs and quotas~~es, in particular through a transparent allocation by fishing sector;

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Believes it necessary~~Reaffirms the need to increase the involvement of stakeholders through the Advisory Councils in the formulation and implementation of multiannual plans and in all decisions concerning regionalisation;

Amendment 242 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that the European Parliament should give particularly close scrutiny to delegated acts regarding discard plans and reserve the right to object to any if it deems it necessary;

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Believes that the European Parliament should give particularly close~~Stresses the importance of the European Parliament co-decision role on monitoring the CFP and its power of scrutiny tover delegated acts regarding the discard pls bans;

Amendment 244 #

Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Ulrike RODUST, Richard CORBETT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Considers that the transitional validity of the delegated acts regarding discard plans, including changes to the minimum conservation reference sizes, should not in any case exceed three years and should be replaced, where appropriate, by a multi- annual plan and that, to that end, multiannual plans should be adopted as soon as possible;

Amendment 245 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Considers that the transitional validity of the delegated acts regarding discard plans~~, including changes to the minimum sizes, should not in any case exceed three years and~~ should be replaced, where appropriate, by a multi-annual plan and that, to that end, multiannual plans should be adopted as soon as possible;

Amendment 246 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Takes the view that, in the context of regionalisation, it is necessary to avoid the proliferation of decisions on minimum sizes for each species, since this would make verification harder and could lead to marketing irregularities or fraud;deleted

Amendment 247 #

Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Ulrike RODUST, Richard CORBETT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Takes the view that, in the context of regionalisation, ~~it is necessary to avoid the prolif~~decisions on minimum conservation ~~of decisions on minimum~~reference sizes for each species, s~~ince this would make verification harder and could lead to marketing irregularities or fraud~~hall be based on scientific advice; stresses the need to avoid marketing irregularities or fraud that could jeopardize the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Takes the view that, in the context of regionalisation, it is necessary to avoid the proliferation of decisions ~~on minimum sizes for each species~~, since this would make verification harder and could lead to marketing irregularities or fraud;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas ~~the complexity of the technical measures and the difficulties arising, coupled with the absence of any tangible results or incentives under the CFP have contributed to making fishermen mistrustful~~, notwithstanding the financial support foreseen in the EMFF to adapt to the changes of the new CFP, the complexity of the technical measures and the difficulties arising, have contributed to making adherence to the rules difficult for fishermen;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the complexity of the technical measures and the difficulties ~~arising~~in implementing them, coupled with the absence of any tangible results or incentives under the CFP have contributed to making fishermen mistrustful;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the complexity of the technical measures and the difficulties arising, ~~coupled with the absence of any tangible results or incen~~as a means for achieving the objectives ~~under~~of the CFP have contributed to making fishermen mistrustful;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the complexity of the technical measures and the difficulties arising, ~~coupled with the absence of any tangible results or incentives under the CFP have contributed to making fishermen mistrustful~~have contributed to lower the acceptance of the rules by fishermen;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

E a. whereas the technical measures represent an opportunity for a proper balance to be established between the management of fishing activities and the relevant environmental policies, in particular in view of the objective to achieve a good environmental status of marine waters by 2020, and taking account of the link between the Habitats Directive, together with the Birds Directive, and the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas, since 2009, legislative proposals regarding technical measures and multiannual plans have made ~~little~~no headway, ~~partly~~ on account of tensions arising between the European institutions ~~concerning their respective decision- making powers~~ under Article 43 TFEU with regard to Commission proposals ~~in the case of~~for the multinational plans and ~~partly~~the subsequent deadlock in Council, and because of difficulties in bringing legislation into line with the Lisbon Treaty regarding the technical measures;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the review of technical measures, ~~based on a solid scientific~~in accordance with best available scientific advice and ecosystem- based approach, should seek to improve the environmental sustainability of the fishery ~~resources without compromising the~~ and marine resources in a way that is consistent with the socioeconomic viability of ~~fishing activity~~the sector;

Amendment 31 #

Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Richard CORBETT

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the review of technical measures, based on a solid scientific approach, should seek to improve the ~~sustainability of fishery resources without compromising the economic viability of fishing activity~~conservation and sustainable exploitation of stocks and minimise the negative impact of fishing on the environment;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the review of technical measures, based on a solid scientific approach, should seek to improve the long- term sustainability of fishery resources ~~without compromising the economic viability of fishing activity~~;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas ~~the discard ban and maximum sustainable yield objective~~achieving the objectives of the new CFP require the use of more selective fishing gears and practices;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the discard ban and maximum sustainable yield objective require the use of more selective fishing gear and existing bans in technical measures hamper innovation and large-scale research into more selective modern fishing gear;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas ~~the discard ban and maximum sustainable yield objective require~~achieving the objectives of the CFP requires, among others, the use of more selective fishing gear;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas ~~the discard ban and maximum sustainable yield objective requi~~achieving the objectives of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 requires among other measures the use of more selective fishing gear;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas current innovations that improve the selectivity of fishing gear are frequently hindered by legislation;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the ~~discard ba~~landing obligation involves a ~~radical~~ change of approach to fisheries management, and hence to technical measures in key areas such as catch composition;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the ~~reform of the~~overall objective of common fisheries policy (CFP) i~~ncluded among its objectives the achievement of~~s to restore and maintain populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)~~, us~~ by implementing anthe ecosystem- based approach to fisheries management introduced by the MSFD; whereas technical measures and multiannual plans~~, which are concerned with conservation, are the main tools to achieve these objective~~ shall be consistent with EU environmental law and shall ensure long term economic, social and employment benefits;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the discard ban involves a radical change of approach to fisheries management, and hence to technical measures in key areas such as catch composition and netting;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the discard ban involves a radical change of approach to fisheries management, with special attention to demersal fisheries, and hence to technical measures in key areas such as catch composition;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the failure of the Council to adopt a clear position has prevented the alignment of legislation regarding technical measures with the Treaty of Lisbon; whereas, following the CFP reform, the deadlock is apparently being resolved through delegated acts adopted by the Commission on the proposal of Member States;deleted

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the failure of the Council to adopt a clear position has prevented the alignment of legislation regarding technical measures with the Treaty of Lisbon; ~~whereas, following the CFP reform, the deadlock is apparently being resolved through delegated acts adopted by the Commission on the proposal of Member States;~~

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

I a. whereas particular emphasis needs to be placed on the importance of small- scale fishing for the sustainability of coastal communities, and in particular for the role of women and children. Whereas the CFP alludes to a differentiated regime for small-scale fishing in Europe.

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)

I b. whereas a general definition is needed for the concept of small-scale fishing, in light of the role it plays in the process of rehabilitating our seas and in preserving traditional and environmentally sustainable practices and trades.

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the definition of basic principles common to all basins through a framework regulation adopted by codecision ('ordinary legislative procedure' under the Lisbon Treaty), is necessary to ensure a level playing field between operators and facilitate the implementation and monitoring of technical measures;deleted

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the definition of basic principles common to all basins through a framework regulation adopted by codecision ('ordinary legislative procedure' under the Lisbon Treaty), is necessary to ensure a level playing field between operators, allow a democratically devised framework to be put in place and facilitate the implementation and monitoring of technical measures;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the definition of basic principles common to all basins through a framework regulation adopted by ~~codecision (~~'ordinary legislative procedure' under the Lisbon Treaty), is necessary to ensure the implementation of the CFP objectives across the EU, to ensure a level playing field between operators and facilitate the implementation and monitoring of technical measures;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) included among its objectives the achievement of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), using an ecosystem-based approach; whereas technical measures and multiannual plans, which are concerned with conservation, are the main tools to achieve these objectiveso restore and maintain populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), using an ecosystem-based approach;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

J a. whereas the infra-regional level is that which is situated lower than the sea basin level;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas codecision is not always necessary for measures taken at regional level or subject to frequent changes, but must be used for the adoption of rules that are common to all sea basins or not likely to be amended in the foreseeable future;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas codecision is not necessary for measures taken at infra-regional level or subject to frequent changes, but must be used for the adoption of rules that are common to all sea basins, already covered by separate regulations or not likely to be amended in the foreseeable future;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas codecision is not necessary for measures taken at regional level and based on standards and objectives decided by the co-legislators or subject to frequent changes, but must be used for the adoption of rules that are common to all sea basins or not likely to be amended in the foreseeable future;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas ~~codecision~~ordinary legislative procedure is ~~not~~ necessary for measures ~~taken at regional level or subject to frequent changes, but must be used~~ for the adoption of rules that are common to all sea basins or not likely to be amended in the foreseeable future; whereas regionalisation can ensure that rules are adapted to the specific requirements of each fishery and each basin, ensuring flexibility and facilitating a rapid response to any emergences arising;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas regionalisation can ensure that rules are adapted to the specific requirements of each fishery and each basin, ensuring flexibility and facilitating a rapid response to any emergencies arising;deleted

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas regionalisation ~~can~~will help make the rules for the sector simpler and more comprehensible, and will ensure that rules are adapted to the specific requirements of each fishery and each basin, ensuring flexibility and facilitating a rapid response to any emergencies arising and should also avoid any temptation towards renationalisation;

Amendment 57 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas regionalisation ~~can~~must ensure that ~~rul~~technical measures are adapted to the specific requirements of each fishery and each basin, ensuring flexibility and facilitating a rapid response to any emergencies arising; whereas regionalisation must make technical measures simpler and easier to understand, implement and enforce; the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis should follow the model agreed by the co- legislators as agreed under the reformed CFP

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital M

~~M. whereas regionalisation can help make the rules simpler and more comprehensible, which would be greatly welcomed by the fisheries sector, especially where it is involved in the adoption thereof;~~deleted

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) includeds among its objectives ~~the achievement of~~restoring and maintaining the fish stocks at levels above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), using an ecosystem-based approach; whereas technical measures and multiannual plans, which are concerned with conservation, are the main tools to achieve these objectives;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital M

Amendment 61 #

Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Ulrike RODUST, Richard CORBETT, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Recital M

M. whereas regionalisation can help make the rules simpler and more comprehensible, which would be greatly welcomed by the fisheries sector and other stakeholders, especially where ~~it is~~they are involved in the adoption thereof;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital M

Amendment 63 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital N

~~N. whereas regionalisation should not lead to renationalisation, this being incompatible with the CFP, under which the EU has sole responsibility, given the shared nature of the resources;~~deleted

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital N

~~N. whereas regionalisation should not lead to renationalisation, this being incompatible with the CFP, under which the EU has sole responsibility, given the shared nature of the resources;~~deleted

Amendment 65 #

João FERREIRA

Motion for a resolution
Recital N

N. whereas ~~regionalisation should not lead to renationalisation, this being incompatible with the CFP, under which the EU has sole responsibility, given the shared nature of~~ the current institutional framework, since the Lisbon Treaty, which gives the EU sole responsibility for managing living marine resources, established and imposed centralised management of fisheries policy, which often fails to take into account the enormous diversity of the sector (as regards stocks, fleets, fishing techniques and fisheries) and prevents local management, which is able to involve the sector in the setting and implementation of policy; and whereas at the time of the most recent revision of the CFP, the previous Commission cited this framework as the reason for not having made more progress withe re~~sources~~gionalisation (a need which was generally accepted);

Amendment 66 #

Peter van DALEN, Ian DUNCAN, Remo SERNAGIOTTO, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ

Motion for a resolution
Recital O

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital O

O. whereas the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis should follow the model agreed by the co-legislators under the new common fisheries policy, namely for adoption by the Commission of delegated acts on the basis of joint recommendations from the Member States concerned; whereas the EP nevertheless retains the right to object to any delegated act, in accordance with the Treaty;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital O

O. whereas the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis should follow the model agreed by the co-legislators under the new common fisheries policy, namely for adoption by the Commission of delegated acts on the basis of joint recommendations from the Member States concerned that meet the standards and objectives decided by the co-legislators, or, if the concerned Member States do not submit a joint recommendation within the designated time, on the Commission's own initiative;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital O

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the ~~reform of the~~ common fisheries policy (~~CFP~~Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013) includeds among its objectives ~~the achievement of~~restoring and maintaining populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), using an ecosystem-based approach; whereas technical measures and multiannual plans~~, which are concerned with conservation, are~~ are among the main tools to achieve these objectives;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital O

O. whereas the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis may in particular should follow the model agreed by the co-legislators under the new common fisheries policy, namely for adoption by the Commission of delegated acts on the basis of joint recommendations from the Member States concerned;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)

Oa. whereas delegated acts for regionalisation are one of the means provided for, but to date the method used to decide on the delegated act has already shown its weaknesses and flaws, in terms of transparency and consultation with those involved (notably the RACs, European Regions, etc.), but also in terms of information and consultation as regards the content;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital O b (new)

Ob. whereas the technical delegated acts adopted to date cover the same geographic perimeter as the existing technical regulations (namely the sea basins), and it is justifiable to question the reason why some stem from codecision and other delegated acts;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital O c (new)

Oc. Whereas the revision of the framework of technical measures should present an opportunity to continue reflecting on regionalisation and to think about alternatives to delegated acts;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

P. whereas certain proposals for specific regulations containing technical measures (concerning driftnets, cetacean bycatches, ban on on-board shark finning or deep-sea fishing) have proved controversial; whereas some proposals, such as those concerning deep-sea fishing in the northeast Atlantic, have been blocked for over three years; whereas deliberations on driftnet fishing are also deadlocked; whereas a number of specific provisions regarding technical measures, such as those concerning on-board shark finning, have been rejected by the RFMOs,deleted

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

P. whereas certain proposals for specific regulations containing technical measures (concerning driftnets, cetacean bycatches, ~~ban on on-board shark finning or~~ deep- sea fishing) have proved controversial; whereas some proposals, such as those concerning deep-sea fishing in the northeast Atlantic, have been blocked for over three years; whereas deliberations on driftnet fishing are also deadlocked; whereas a number of specific provisions regarding technical measures~~, such as those concerning on-board shark finning,~~ have been rejected by the RFMOs,

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

P. whereas certain proposals for specific regulations containing technical measures (concerning driftnets, cetacean bycatches, ban on on-board shark finning or deep-sea fishing) have proved controversial; whereas some proposals, such as those concerning deep-sea fishing in the northeast Atlantic, have been blocked for over three years; whereas deliberations on driftnet fishing are also deadlocked; whereas ~~a number of specific provisions regarding technical measures, such as those concerning on-board shark finning, have been rejected by the RFMOs,~~shark finning is now prohibited by most RFMOs and the 28 Member States of the EU, RFMOs finning bans still contain loopholes that hinder compliance, monitoring and enforcement

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)

Pa. whereas the technical measures should take account of the phenomenon of illegal fishing which is often accompanied by the illegal use of fishing gear, such as in the case of driftnets, and should propose an effective solution to the problem posed by IUU fishing.

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

Amendment 80 #