2019/2177(INI) Securing the objectives of the landing obligation under Article 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy
Lead committee dossier:
Progress: Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | PECH |
GADE Søren ( Renew)
|
MONTEIRO DE AGUIAR Cláudia ( EPP),
GONZÁLEZ CASARES Nicolás ( S&D),
JAMET France ( ID),
KELLER Ska ( Verts/ALE),
RUISSEN Bert-Jan ( ECR),
FERREIRA João ( GUE/NGL)
|
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
2021/05/18
EP - Decision by Parliament
Details
The European Parliament adopted by 624 votes to 29, with 43 abstentions, a resolution on securing the objectives of the landing obligation under Article 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Reaffirming the EU's overall objective of achieving sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, Parliament stressed that reducing discards and minimising unwanted catches are public policy priorities. These priorities have been developed in response to concerns about responsibility, conservation and waste, as regards natural resources, and the scientific need to take full account of all sources of fishing mortality.
Difficulties in implementing the discard ban
The introduction of the landing obligation represents one of the greatest challenges in the history of EU fisheries management. Many fishermen do not understand the aim and procedure for implementing this obligation and question its legitimacy, which tends to hamper compliance.
The landing obligation continues to raise concerns in the fishing sector and in the scientific community due to various obstacles. Concerns relate to the lack of adequate infrastructure in ports, increased operational costs, lack of clear incentives and difficulties in increasing selectivity in some fisheries without compromising the economic viability of the fishery.
Deploring that difficulties in implementing the discard ban have led to a negative representation of fishermen, Parliament stressed the need to remove administrative obstacles to the effective implementation of the landing obligation, to strengthen the development and adoption of new selective gears and to draw up effective plans to reduce by-catches in order to rebuild vulnerable stocks.
Lack of information on landing obligations
Members regretted that the Commission's annual progress reports on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) include very little information on the implementation of the landing obligation and have so far failed to report on the level of discard reduction achieved under this obligation, or to study the socio-economic impact of the landing obligation or the consequences of its implementation on safety on board fishing vessels.
In order to ensure proper implementation of the landing obligation, the Commission and the Member States should increase their efforts to fully implement the relevant EU legislation and take additional measures to ensure comprehensive catch documentation and data collection in a manner proportionate to the fishing capacity of the small-scale coastal fleet.
Improving the implementation of landing obligations
Parliament recommended the following measures and management tools to improve the situation such as:
- further use and optimisation of quota-based tools;
- studying the feasibility of implementing a marine spatial planning and area-based management approach;
- providing greater flexibility to allow fishers to choose gear solutions;
- providing flexible mechanisms for the approval of new types of selective gear;
- granting exclusive access to fishing locations or time periods in order to encourage selectivity;
- adopting strategies to make the best use of unwanted catches for purposes other than human consumption without creating a demand for undersized catches and provided that it is feasible for fishers in economic and operational terms;
- using and developing voluntary and incentive-linked artificial intelligence tools to increase selectivity and control and improve species identification;
- progressively introducing the requirement for compliance with the same discard policy for imports of fisheries products from third countries in order to eliminate the comparative disadvantage and unfair competition for the European fleet, while moving towards better protection of global fisheries resources;
- renewing the Commission’s obligation to report annually on the state of play of the CFP and the implementation of the landing obligation and providing more information on its implementation.
Members called on the Commission in the framework of the evaluation report on the implementation of the CFP due in 2022 to, in particular:
- assess the extent to which the reduction of discards under the landing obligation has been achieved;
- assess the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation, the remuneration system, the number of crew members and the safety and working conditions on board;
- assess the impact on the sustainability of the species removed by the Council from the list of stocks subject to TACs in recent years and evaluate the potential consequences of its reintroduction under the TAC system;
- identify and remove the administrative difficulties encountered in developing and implementing selectivity pilot projects, which are hampering fishers’ efforts to be more selective;
- assess whether the current landing obligation policy is fit for purpose and evaluate the feasibility of adapting the landing obligation on a case-by-case basis by fishery and/or stock;
- assess pathways for better adaptation and simplification of Article 15 of the CFP on landing obligations to facilitate its implementation and understanding by all stakeholders and in particular the use by Member States of the overall available tools provided by the legal framework in place to improve selectivity and reduce unwanted catches.
Lastly, the Commission is called on to submit, based on this evaluation and if appropriate, a legislative proposal in order to better achieve the objectives of reducing discards and improving stocks.
Documents
2021/05/17
EP - Debate in Parliament
Documents
2021/04/27
EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details
The Committee on Fisheries adopted the own-initiative report by Søren GADE (DK, Renew) on securing the objectives of the landing obligation under Article 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy.
The landing obligation makes it mandatory to land and deduct from applicable quotas all catches of species which are subject to catch limits and, in the Mediterranean Sea, are subject to minimum sizes in EU waters, or in certain cases by EU vessels in international waters and forbids the use of undersized fish for direct human consumption.
The landing obligation is not a fully comprehensive discard ban as it only applies to regulated species (total allowable catches (TACs) and effort-regulated fisheries for which a minimum size has been defined.
Lack of information on landing obligations
The report recalled that the landing obligation is not a goal in itself but a tool to drive improvements in fishing and operational behaviour, incentivise the development and usage of more selective gears to minimise unwanted catches, and improve catch documentation for a better understanding and scientific assessment of fish stocks. Many fishers do not concur with the link between the objectives of the landing obligation and its implementation, which tends to hamper compliance.
Members regretted that the Commission’s annual reports on the state of play of the CFP include very little information on the implementation of the landing obligation, with no information so far on the extent to which discards have been reduced under the obligation. The introduction of the landing obligation represents one of the greatest challenges in the history of EU fisheries management – from recording landings, and even making discards mandatory at times, to a system that records the entire catch – which together with the introduction of the MSY policy, has inevitably had a range of far-reaching short- and long-term ecological and socioeconomic impacts.
The landing obligation continues to raise concerns in the fishing industry and within the scientific community due to obstacles of a diverse nature. The report pointed out the fisheries sector’s causes of concern are the lack of adequate infrastructure at ports, rising operating costs, lack of incentives for compliance provided by the authorities, and difficulties in achieving greater selectivity in some fisheries without jeopardising the economic viability of fishing.
Improving the implementation of landing obligations
The report recommended the following measures and management tools to improve the situation such as:
- further use and optimisation of quota-based tools;
- studying the feasibility of implementing a marine spatial planning and area-based management approach;
- providing greater flexibility to allow fishers to choose gear solutions;
- providing flexible mechanisms for the approval of new types of selective gear;
- granting exclusive access to fishing locations or time periods in order to encourage selectivity;
- adopting strategies to make the best use of unwanted catches for purposes other than human consumption without creating a demand for undersized catches and provided that it is feasible for fishers in economic and operational terms;
- using and developing voluntary and incentive-linked artificial intelligence tools to increase selectivity and control and improve species identification;
- progressively introducing the requirement for compliance with the same discard policy for imports of fisheries products from third countries in order to eliminate the comparative disadvantage and unfair competition for the European fleet, while moving towards better protection of global fisheries resources;
- renewing the Commission’s obligation to report annually on the state of play of the CFP and the implementation of the landing obligation and providing more information on its implementation.
Members called on the Commission in the framework of the evaluation report on the implementation of the CFP due in 2022 to, in particular:
- assess the extent to which the reduction of discards under the landing obligation has been achieved;
- assess the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation, the remuneration system, the number of crew members and the safety and working conditions on board;
- assess the impact on the sustainability of the species removed by the Council from the list of stocks subject to TACs in recent years and evaluate the potential consequences of its reintroduction under the TAC system;
- identify and remove the administrative difficulties encountered in developing and implementing selectivity pilot projects, which are hampering fishers’ efforts to be more selective;
- assess whether the current landing obligation policy is fit for purpose and evaluate the feasibility of adapting the landing obligation on a case-by-case basis by fishery and/or stock;
- assess pathways for better adaptation and simplification of Article 15 of the CFP on landing obligations to facilitate its implementation and understanding by all stakeholders and in particular the use by Member States of the overall available tools provided by the legal framework in place to improve selectivity and reduce unwanted catches.
Lastly, the Commission is called on to submit, based on this evaluation and if appropriate, a legislative proposal in order to better achieve the objectives of reducing discards and improving stocks.
Documents
2021/04/19
EP - Vote in committee
2020/12/17
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2020/10/28
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2020/04/20
EP - GADE Søren (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in PECH
2019/12/19
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
Documents
- Decision by Parliament: T9-0227/2021
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A9-0147/2021
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE663.017
- Committee draft report: PE659.055
- Committee draft report: PE659.055
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE663.017
Activities
- Dita CHARANZOVÁ
- Søren GADE
Plenary Speeches (1)
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 174 |
2019/2177(INI)
2020/12/17
PECH
174 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 a (new) - having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 e (new) - having regard to the report 'A third assessment of global marine fisheries discards', published by the FAO in 2019,
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the landing obligation has raised and continues to raise serious concerns in both the fishing industry
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the landing obligation
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the landing obligation has raised concerns in the fishing industry, especially in mixed fisheries exposed to potential choke species cases and early closure of fisheries; welcomes the measures taken to date – quota swaps and quota pools for by-catch species – and insists on the need to further develop effective by-catch reduction plans with the aim of rebuilding vulnerable stocks, also taking into consideration the social and economic aspect;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Notes with concern, furthermore, that mixed fisheries are vulnerable to possible cases of species choking and the early closure of fisheries as a result of the landing obligation; deplores that the measures taken thus far – quota exchanges and quotas for by-catch species – have proved insufficient to address the problem; urges the Commission and the Council, in particular, to remove by-catch species which are under no conservation risk (deep-sea species such as sea bream or black scabbardfish for example) from the list of stocks subject to TACs;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Underlines the concern that shared stocks with third countries may not be subject to the same provisions on discards; stresses the need for progressive convergence with regard to the main objectives of fisheries management in order to ensure the highest standards for achieving good environmental status of shared stocks, sustainability of the fishing activity and the maintenance of a level playing field;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Highlights the problems posed by the landing obligation in mixed fisheries with the choke stocks; Emphasizes that choke situations will continue to persist and lead to catch limits and under- utilisation of available quotas, creating serious economic difficulties for the fleets concerned;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Stresses the potential and the need for the use of the
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Stresses that the STECF has acknowledged that the quality of submissions to support the exemptions has generally improved since the first joint recommendations were submitted in 2014; Recognizes that providing data and information in support of the exemptions can be challenging due to the nature of the data required; Notes with concern, however, that the STECF has highlighted that there are many cases where the information and data supplied is not species and/or fishery specific and the same studies and assumptions are used to support multiple exemptions; stresses that the absence of species- and fishery- specific data and information makes it difficult to evaluate the likely impact of proposed exemption or whether the exemption meets the conditions for de minimis or high survival;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Regrets that despite fishermen’s efforts to be more selective and to comply with the new rules, Art.15 is not working as intended due to the administrative difficulties encountered to develop selectivity pilot projects which require special authorisations, the patchwork of rules contained in the many discard plans, the clash with national rules and the complexity of mixed fisheries management;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A (new) -A. whereas target 14.4 of Goal 14 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development urges the international community to effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science based management plans by 2020, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Is concerned that the progressive reduction of certain flexible arrangements, such as the 'de minimis' exemption, may cause or aggravate the choking effect and lead to the closure of fisheries; stresses the need to continue developing effective by-catch reduction schemes in less selective fisheries such as pelagic trawling grounds;
Amendment 111 #
5 a. Stresses concern over the fact that shared stocks with third countries (in particular the United Kingdom) may not be subject to the same landing obligation provisions; stresses the need to seek alignment with third country’s regimes on major fisheries management objectives and principles in order to maintain a level playing field;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Recalls the failure in the search for alternative uses for landed material below minimum conservation reference sizes and unwanted catches due to the prohibitive cost to the fishermen of storage and transport of such catches1a; Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of amending the legislation to allow such catches to be used for charitable purposes as suggested by several Member States and the South Western Waters Advisory Council; _________________ 1a EUMOFA study on Market Outlets for Unwanted Catches (2020)
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that the landing obligation is not a goal in itself but a tool to drive improvements in fishing and operational behaviour, incentivise the development and usage of more selective gears to minimise unwanted catches, and improve catch documentation for a better understanding and scientific assessment of fish stocks; recognises that while pursuing this ultimate objective requires time and sufficient knowledge, greater efforts are needed to promote a common understanding of it and to fully utilise the landing obligation as a means to achieve it; calls on the Commission to continue to support plans to improve selectivity, including where appropriate by using incentives for the uptake of more selective gears;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that the landing obligation is not a goal in itself but a tool to drive improvements in fishing and operational behaviour, incentivise the development and usage of more selective gears to minimise unwanted catches, and improve catch documentation for a better understanding and scientific assessment of fish stocks; recognises that
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that the landing obligation is not a goal in itself but a tool to drive improvements in fishing and operational behaviour, incentivise the development and usage of more selective gears to minimise unwanted catches, and improve catch documentation for a better understanding and scientific assessment of fish stocks; recognises that
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Stresses the specificities of the Outermost Regions, particularly in terms of vessels, aging fleets, ports with reduced storage and processing capacity, which may render the landing obligation impractical;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Notes that discard levels vary heavily from fisheries to sea basins, leading to the perception that the ‘one rule fits all’ approach may not be the optimal strategy to encourage fishers to become more selective; calls on the Commission to identify the main shortcomings and to propose adapted and tailor-made solutions for specific fisheries for each sea basin, with particular attention to small-scale artisanal fishing, especially in the Outermost Regions;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Notes that discard levels vary heavily from fisheries to sea basins, leading to the perception that the ‘one rule fits all’ approach
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Recalls that the current legal framework provides the legal basis for Member States to actively work together to define selective fishing rules in a more flexible manner and to deploy scientifically-proven mitigation tools; calls on the Member States to enhance their cooperation through a regional approach, including the involvement of relevant stakeholders and Advisory Councils, and to make full use of the subsidies available to them to this end; reiterates the need to ensure a level playing field in the implementation of the landing obligation;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A a (new) -A a. whereas the magnitude of annual discards in global marine capture fisheries is estimated to be 9.1 million tonnes, which represent 10.8% of the annual average catch of 2010-2014; whereas fisheries targeting tunas and other pelagic species had the lowest discard rates, while fisheries targeting crustaceans had the highest discard rates; whereas fisheries targeting demersal fishes produced the highest volumes of discards and fisheries targeting molluscs (excluding cephalopods) produced the lowest volumes; whereas annual global discards peaked at around 18.8 million tonnes in 1989 and gradually declined to less than 10 million tonnes by 20141a; _________________ 1a A third assessment of global marine fisheries discards, FAO, 2019
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Recalls that the current legal framework provides the legal basis for Member States to actively work together to define selective fishing rules in a more flexible manner and to deploy scientifically-proven mitigation tools; calls on the Member States to enhance their cooperation
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the results from recent scientific studies (e.g. DiscardLess, MINOUW and LIFE iSEAS) on innovative gear selectivity, avoidance strategies and vessel modifications to handle unwanted catches on board; Considers it necessary to continue research efforts to improve gear selectivity, avoidance strategies and handling of unwanted catches; Welcomes the proposed Mission Starfish 2030: Restore our Ocean and Waters and considers that a mission in the area of healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters will help develop solutions urgently needed and that have a direct impact on the fishing sector and the sustainable use and management of ocean resources;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses that efficient fisheries management systems, including being able to use all elements to properly implement the landing obligation and achieve the objectives of the CFP, need to be supported by accurate and reliable catch documentation and scientific data; calls on the Commission and the Member States to step up efforts to fully implement applicable EU legislation if needed and to take further action to ensure full documentation and data collection, in a manner proportionate to their fishing capacity for the small-scale coastal fleet;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses that efficient fisheries management systems, including being able to use all elements to properly implement the landing obligation and achieve the objectives of the CFP, need to be supported by
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10 a. Underlines the concern that the shared stocks with third countries may not be subject to the same landing obligation provisions. Coordination with third countries, in particular with the United Kingdom, in fisheries management is essential to maintain a level playing field;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Is concerned about the lack of proper control over and compliance with the landing obligation
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Is concerned about the lack of proper control over and compliance with the landing obligation
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Is concerned about the lack of
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A b (new) -A b. whereas the aim of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy was to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, including the avoidance and reduction, as far as possible, of unwanted catches; whereas there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the implementation of the landing obligation has led to a dramatic reduction in unwanted catches;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Is concerned about the lack of proper control over and compliance with
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Is concerned about the lack of proper control over and compliance with
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Stresses the need to review and limit the list of stocks to which the landing obligation applies by removing, for example, species with high potential of survival, non-commercial species or zero TAC species from the TAC system, in order to alleviate the choke species problem, while managing these species through other fisheries management tools;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Suggests that a comprehensive review be undertaken to promote simplification of Article 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation so it complies more with fishers' real working situation, is easier for all stakeholders to understand, implement and adopt, and ties in better to other regulations in force;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Deplores that fewer Member States have carried out specific studies and pilot projects to test selective gear or avoidance strategies in 2019;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – introductory part 12. Stresses that
Amendment 137 #
12. Stresses that while improving selectivity must
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – introductory part 12. Stresses that while improving selectivity must be a high priority,
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – introductory part 12. Stresses that while improving selectivity must be a
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas discarding is a common fisheries practice of returning unwanted catches to the sea, either dead or alive, owing to undersized individuals, reasons of marketability, lack of quota or catch composition rules; whereas, prior to the introduction of the landing obligation, it was not permitted to have undersized fish on board or to land them;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point a a. using quota-based tools: the distribution of quotas in line with the expected catch composition, further use and optimisation of adjustments through quota swaps with other Member States and neighbouring third countries with which the EU shares stocks, moving towards permanent and not only annually renewable mechanisms after the setting of TACs and quotas, and the allocation of estimated discard share of quotas for fishers that opt to use more selective gear;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point a a. using quota-based tools:
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point a a. using quota-based tools: the distribution of quotas in line with the expected catch composition, further use of adjustments through quota swaps
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point a a. using quota-based tools:
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point a a. using quota-based tools: the distribution of quotas in line with the expected catch composition, further use of adjustments through quota swaps with other Member States and the allocation of estimated discard share of quotas for fishers that opt to use more selective gear without prejudice to the principle of relative stability;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point a a. using quota-based tools: the distribution of quotas in line with the expected catch composition, further use of adjustments through quota swaps with other Member States and the allocation of estimated discard share of quotas for fishers, especially those operating on a small scale, that opt to use more selective gear;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point a a.
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point a a.
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point b b. studying the feasibility of implementing a marine spatial planning approach in order to avoid discards by guiding fishers to areas where undersized fish are less likely to be present, while ensuring that such measures do not result in the non-use of other commercially sized species;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point b b. implementing a
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas discarding is a common fisheries practice of returning unwanted catches to the sea, either dead or alive, owing to damaged fish, undersized individuals, reasons of marketability, lack of quota or catch composition rules; whereas before the introduction of the landing obligation, there was an obligation to discard undersized and over- quota fish;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point b b. implementing a
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point e Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point e Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point e Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point e e. studying the feasibility of granting exclusive access to fishing locations or time periods in order to encourage selectivity;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point f f. adopting strategies to use unwanted catches other than for human consumption under the condition that it is feasible for the fishermen in economic and operational terms;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point f f. adopting strategies to use unwanted catches other than for human consumption, or a plan to use them for charitable purposes in order to reduce food waste;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point f f. adopting strategies to use unwanted catches other than for human consumption, provided that it is feasible in economic and operational terms for the fishers;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point f f. adopting strategies to use unwanted catches other than for human consumption, provided that they are financially and operationally feasible for fishermen;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point f f. adopting strategies to use unwanted catches other than for human consumption, ensuring their operational and economic viability for fishers;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas discarding is a common fisheries practice of returning unwanted catches to the sea, either dead or alive
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point f f. adopting strategies to use unwanted
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point g g. developing a
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point g g. developing
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point h h. using and developing artificial intelligence tools to increase selectivity and control in collaboration with the fishing sector and Member States' authorities;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point h h. using and developing artificial intelligence tools to increase selectivity and control in cooperation with the fishing sector and Member States’ authorities;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point h h. using and developing artificial intelligence tools to increase selectivity and control in cooperation with the fishing sector and Member States’ authorities;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point h h. using and developing artificial intelligence tools to increase selectivity and control, in close cooperation with the Member States' and the fishing sector;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point h h. using and developing artificial intelligence tools to increase selectivity and control, and improve species identification;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point h h. using and developing
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point h – point i (new) i) Calls on the European Commission to stop utilising the landing obligation as a tool if the above mentioned recommendations cannot be granted;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) A a. whereas the landing obligation leads to the discarding in port of fish which could be destined for human consumption or which, when returned to the sea, may contribute to the feeding of a range of scavenging species, from avian to mesopelagic and benthic communities;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – point h a (new) h a. progressively introducing the requirement for compliance with the same discard policy for imports of fisheries products from third countries in order to eliminate the comparative disadvantage and unfair competition for the European fleet, while moving towards better protection of global fisheries resources;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12 a. Calls on the Commission, in the framework of the evaluation report of the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy due in 2022 to particularly assess and monitor: - pathways for better adaptation and simplification of Article 15 of the CFP to facilitate its implementation and understanding by allstakeholders and especially the use by Member States of the overall available tools provided by the legal framework in place to improve selectivity; - fisheries where scientific evidence indicates that increases in selectivity are currently difficult to achieve; - the recent adoption of quota pools for by-catch as an efficient and applicable tool to counter choke species situations.
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12 a. Expresses concern over the fact that shared stocks with third countries (in particular the UK) may not be subject to the same landing obligation provisions; stresses the need to seek alignment with third country’s regimes on major fisheries management objectives and principles in order to maintain a level playing field;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas a certain level of unwanted by-catch and discarding is unavoidable, just like in almost any other economic activity on land and at sea; whereas unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantial waste of natural resources and have an adverse effect on the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and marine ecosystems and the financial viability of fisheries; whereas the EU landing obligation constitutes a waste of perfectly edible fish that is now being dumped in ports, contributing to emptying the seas, instead of returned to the sea, which not only disrupts the trophic chain but also deprives marine and avian species that nourish from by-catches;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas a certain level of unwanted by-catch and discarding is unavoidable, specially in mixed fisheries; whereas unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantial waste of natural resources and have an adverse effect on the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and marine ecosystems and the financial viability of fisheries;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 a (new) - having regard to the Commission communication of 16 June 2020 on the State of Play of the Common Fisheries Policy and Consultation on the Fishing Opportunities for 2021 (COM(2020/248),
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantial waste of natural resources
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas unwanted catches and discards constitute a
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C.
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C.
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C.
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) C a. whereas the potential for choking in mixed fisheries remains a deep rooted and constant problem; whereas selectivity will not fully solve the problems in these fisheries and it will be very difficult from a technical point of view to improve selectivity in order to reduce catches of the relevant choke stocks without causing large losses of other marketable catches, thus creating serious economic difficulties for the fleets concerned;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) C a. whereas there is no reliable data on discards as the landing obligation has led to a loss of visibility of catches in some fisheries and circumstances that led to a degradation in the scientific advice and the quality of data;
Amendment 27 #
D. whereas the ban on the practice of high grading (discarding of marketable fish), which was introduced in the EU in 2010, has been poorly implemented due to a lack of resources and outlets;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) D a. whereas the European Commission has conducted socio- economic impact assessment on discard reducing policies prior to proposing the Landing Obligation in the proposal for a new CFP basic regulation in July 2011;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as reformed in 2013, introduced the
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 a (new) Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as reformed in 2013, introduced the objective for the Union to gradually eliminate discards by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches as far as possible, and by ensuring that catches of regulated commercial species are landed;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) E a. whereas the landing obligation brings economic loss due to limited storage space, for which more fishing trips and thus time at sea is needed to fully use quota, higher fuel consumption, and extra costs of offloading, manual sorting, weighing and processing; whereas economic loss may negatively affect fishermen’s salary and work load, increased labour on board plus an increased number of personnel, increase of load handling, decrease in wages and decrease of rest periods; whereas the landing obligation also jeopardises safety on board and the stability of the ship due to the need to stow higher pillars of boxes.
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) E a. whereas fishermen are suffering serious difficulties and economic losses stemming from the contradiction between Art. 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy and the requirements set out in social legislation such as the Directive 2017/159 implementing ILO C188;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) E a. Whereas although the introduction of the landing obligation has been done gradually, the European Commission did not provide answers to the many implementing doubts raised by the Advisory Councils and Member States;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) E a. whereas the landing obligation came into being without the support of the sector, with insufficient attention being paid to the practical implementation of the new rule;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) Ea. whereas the discard rate is falling in Europe;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E b (new) E b. Whereas the implementation of the landing obligation depends on extensive use of exemptions which are temporary and require annual revisit, absorbing too much time, money and effort from decision-makers, taxpayers and the fishing industry;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the landing obligation, which was phased in over a period of four years (2015-2019), makes it mandatory to land and deduct from applicable quotas all catches of regulated species in EU waters, or by EU vessels in international waters, and forbids the use of undersized fish for direct human consumption; whereas, however, an exception should be made for charitable purposes, in order to reduce food waste;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the landing obligation, which was phased in over a period of four years (2015-2019),
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the landing obligation, which was phased in over a period of four years (2015-2019), makes it mandatory to land and deduct from applicable quotas all catches of regulated species in EU waters, or in certain cases by EU vessels in international waters, and forbids the use of undersized fish for direct human consumption;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 — having regard to the plenary reports of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) (PLEN 20-01, 19-01, 18-01 and 17-01), and its reports 'Evaluation of Member States' Annual Reports on the Landing Obligation (for 2019)' (Adhoc-20-02), 'Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy' (Adhoc-20-01) and 'Evaluation of Joint Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation' (STECF-20-04),
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the landing obligation, which was phased in over a period of four years (2015-2019), makes it mandatory to land and deduct from applicable quotas all catches of regulated species in EU waters, or by EU vessels in international waters,
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) F a. whereas according to the STECF1a, no information has been provided on the implementation of the landing obligation for the long-distance fleets operating outside Union waters; whereas the LDAC highlighted that the landing obligation does not apply in practice to EU vessels fishing outside EU waters; _________________ 1aEvaluation of Member States' Annual Reports on the Landing Obligation (for 2019) (STECF-Adhoc-20-02)
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) F a. whereas before the introduction of the landing obligation it was forbidden for a fishing vessel to carry on board or land any fish for which it did not have a valid quota or was undersized;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F b (new) Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F c (new) F c. whereas several Member States suggest that legislation should be amended to allow fish under the relevant minimum conservation reference sizes which are subject to a landing obligation may to be used for charitable purposes;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F d (new) F d. whereas the implementation of the landing obligation is expected to result in a loss of income in the short term, with potential negative consequences for the socio-economic viability of the sector but some benefits could be expected in the medium and long term if the implementation leads to more selective fishing practices and improved stock status; whereas the effects of the discard ban should be evaluated from a multi- dimensional perspective 1a; _________________ 1aMonitoring the environmental, social and economic dimensions of the landing obligation policy, Frontiers in Marine Science, 2019
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F e (new) F e. whereas the European Commission has so far failed to report on the extent to which the reduction of discards has been achieved or to analyse the socio-economic impact of the landing obligation or the effects of its implementation on safety on board fishing vessels;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) G a. whereas discard levels vary widely by region and species, with little or no discards in fisheries where most or all of the catch is of commercial value and exploited, as is the case in small-scale or traditional fisheries and fisheries for direct human consumption;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) G a. whereas the timeframe for the progressive introduction of the landing obligation supported by the conduction of pilot projects aiming at fully exploring all practicable methods for the avoidance, minimisation and elimination of unwanted catches, in accordance with article 14 of the CFP, has not been sufficient;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) G a. whereas undersized fish cannot be marketed for direct human consumption purposes and since many EU countries do not have fishmeal factories, the fish would be wasted; whereas bringing and processing unwanted by-catch onshore is too expensive, has no market demand, and would mean for unnecessary waste of food;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 a (new) - having regard to Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 of 19 December 2016 implementing the Agreement concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation,
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Ga. whereas small-scale fishing employs more operators and uses more selective gear, causing less environmental damage and playing a key social and economic role, as highlighted by the GFCM's SoMFi 2018 report;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) G a. whereas up to five Member States provided no response to the Commission's questionnaire on the implementation of the landing obligation for 2019; whereas two of these states have failed to do so for the last three years;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) G a. whereas Regulation EU 2015/812 introduced additional exemptions to the Landing Obligation for fish which shows damaged caused by predators;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) G a. Whereas choke species in mixed fisheries remains an ongoing problem;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G b (new) Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G b (new) G b. whereas the implementation of the landing obligation depends on the extensive use of exemptions which, by their nature, are temporary and require annual review, which requires time and effort from decision-makers and the fishing sector;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G b (new) G b. whereas the Council has removed several species from the list of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) over the last years, thereby removing them also from being subject to the Landing Obligation;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G b (new) G b. Whereas differences in control and enforcement of the landing obligation can lead to an uneven playing field within and between Member States;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G b (new) G b. Whereas differences in control and enforcement of the landing obligation can lead to an uneven playing field within and between Member States;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G b (new) G b. whereas the landing obligation also depends on the use of temporary exemptions scientifically assessed;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 a (new) - Having regard to "Borges, The unintended impact of the European discard ban, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 20201a", _________________ 1a https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa200
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G c (new) G c. whereas the amount of unwanted fish caught in the net and hauled on board can be significantly reduced in the first place through spatial and temporal avoidance and technical selectivity measures, thereby reducing handling time;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G c (new) G c. whereas according to the Member States reports the number of specific studies or pilot projects to test more selective gears or avoidance strategies has been declining;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G c (new) Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G c (new) G c. whereas quota pools for by-catch have been recently adopted to counter choke species situations;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G d (new) G d. whereas STECF highlights that relatively few measures aimed to increase selectivity were contained in the joint recommendations by Member States regional groups for the implementation of the landing obligation (LO) in 2021;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G d (new) G d. whereas the potential for chokes in mixed fisheries remains a deep rooted and ongoing problem;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G e (new) G e. whereas the reports of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) evaluating compliance with the landing obligation recommend an increase in the number of last haul inspections and the introduction of remote electronic monitoring (REM) systems;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G e (new) G e. whereas differences in control and enforcement of the landing obligation may result in an uneven playing field within the different fisheries and between Member States;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 b (new) - having regard to the study 'Implementation of the EU fisheries control system by Member States (2014- 19)', requested by the PECH committee,
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas several third countries and self-governing territories
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) H a. whereas the principle of relative stability, first set out in the CFP Basic Regulation of 1983 and implemented by the TACs and Quota Regulation of the same year, lays down a distributional key of the TAC by Member State based on the allocation principles of historical catches (1973-1978), dependency as enshrined in the Hague preferences of 1976 and jurisdictional losses (1973-1976);
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) H a. Whereas no impact assessment on the socio-economic and safety consequences of the landing obligation was conducted to underpin Art. 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation, contrary to the Commission obligation to carry out impact assessments on initiatives expected to have significant economic, social or environmental impacts;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) H a. whereas almost 4000 scientific papers have been published on discards, of which more than 3700 are related to industrial fisheries and less than 200 papers focused on small scale coastal fisheries;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) H a. Whereas new policies must be implemented after a discussion and agreement between the fisheries sector and government, ensuring their applicability and effectiveness;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H b (new) H b. whereas since about 1950 many marine species across various groups have undergone shifts in geographical range and seasonal activities in response to ocean warming and biogeochemical changes, such as oxygen loss, to their habitats, which has resulted in shifts in species composition, abundance and biomass production of ecosystems, from the equator to the poles; whereas the change in the distribution of fish stocks has an impact on future fisheries management and hence also on the implementation of the landing obligation;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H b (new) H b. whereas climate change, rising temperatures and sea and ocean acidification will significantly change the distribution of fish stocks, affecting the EU's future fisheries management and, inherently, implementation of the landing obligation as well;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H c (new) H c. whereas some voices within the fisheries sector are calling for an assessment of how much more suitable a model based on fishing effort rather than TACs and quotas would be for managing mixed fisheries in Western Waters;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H d (new) H d. whereas the Commission must submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on implementation of the CFP, including the landing obligation, by 31 December 2022;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Affirms the EU’s overall objective of ensuring the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and the protection of marine ecosystems; highlights that reducing discards and minimising unwanted catches is a public policy priority that has been shaped in response to concerns over accountability, conservation and the wasting of natural resources as well as the scientific need to fully account for all sources of fishing mortality; acknowledges, however, that since 2010 there has been an obligation to record discards in the logbook in application of the control regulation; regrets that, despite the introduction of the landing obligation, knowledge about discards is limited and the European Commission has admitted that the quantities recorded as discarded and the landed quantities of catches below the minimum conservation reference sizes are very low and it is extremely doubtful that they reflect the true quantities being caught;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 c (new) - having regard to the studies requested by the PECH committee on the landing obligation and choke species in multispecies and mixed fisheries in the North Sea 1a, the North Western Waters2a and the South Western Waters3a, and the studies on the discard ban, landing obligation and MSY in the Western Mediterranean 4a 5a, _________________ 1aLanding Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries - The North Sea 2aLanding Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries - The North Western Waters 3aLanding Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries - The South Western Waters 4aDiscard ban, landing obligation and MSY in the Western Mediterranean Sea - the Spanish case 5aDiscard ban, landing obligation and MSY in the Western Mediterranean Sea - the Italian case
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Affirms the EU’s overall objective of ensuring the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and the protection of marine ecosystems
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Affirms the EU’s overall objective of ensuring the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and the protection of marine ecosystems; highlights that reducing discards and minimising unwanted catches is a public policy priority that has been shaped in response to concerns over accountability, conservation and the wasting of natural resources as well as the scientific need to
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Notes with concern that the increase on the number of precautionary TACs, in contrast with the reduction in the quantities of analytical TACs, shows that the availability of scientific information on the status of the stocks has not improved after the introduction of the landing obligation;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Regrets that the European Commission's annual reports on the state of play of the Common Fisheries Policy include very little information on the implementation of the landing obligation, without having so far managed to report on the extent to which the reduction of discards under the obligation has been achieved and without having analysed the socio-economic impact of the LO or the effects of its implementation on safety on board fishing vessels;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Acknowledges that the introduction of the landing obligation represents a
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Acknowledges that the introduction of the landing obligation represents
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Acknowledges that the introduction of the landing obligation represents a major change in EU fisheries management – from recording landings to a system that records the entire catch –
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Acknowledges that by increasing the bureaucracy involved, the introduction of the landing obligation represents a major change in EU fisheries management – from recording landings to a system that records the entire catch – and has inevitably had a range of
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Urges the revision and simplification of Artile 15 of the CFP; calls for a change of focus of Article 15 which instead of pursuing an overall and absolute discards ban should incentivise the continuous ambition to avoid and reduce unwanted by-catch and discards on a case by case approach per fishery and/or stock; stresses that the landing obligation should apply to a more limited number of stocks; calls for a more integrated fisheries management approach in which discard policy has a place but is not the main driver;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Stresses that effective implementation of discard-reduction policies entails more than merely strengthening oversight of compliance with the landing obligation and, crucially, requires the involvement of fishermen and other stakeholders in devising and implementing policies, thus fostering a culture of compliance and gradual changes in landing obligation rules over time, following a measured and adaptable approach;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 d (new) - having regard to the book 'The European Landing Obligation, Reducing discards in complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries', published in 2019,
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Calls for the collection of socio- economic data on how the landing obligation impacts on the socio-economic viability of the sector, the remuneration system, the number of crew members, the workload, the working conditions and safety standards of fishers, in line with FAO and ILO recommendations;
Amendment 91 #
2 a. Calls for studies on the socio- economic impact of fisheries policies, in particular the effects of the landing obligation on work conditions and the safety of fishers, in line with the recommendations of the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Labour Organization;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Recognises that the MSY policy does not imply that there are no discards and discarding does not mean that the MSY could not be reached, it has actually been the case for many stocks, including by-catch species;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the progress made in terms of stakeholder cooperation and the steps taken to improve selectivity; notes, however, that, according to the European Commission and STECF, implementation of the landing obligation remains low overall and that discarding is occurring at rates roughly comparable to the years before the landing obligation was introduced; Urges the Commission to reflect on the changes needed in the landing obligation, and submit a legislative proposal after the evaluation of the CFP reform that will be carried out by 2022 if appropriate, in order to better achieve its main objective of reducing discards and improving stocks;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the progress made in terms of stakeholder cooperation and the steps taken to improve selectivity; notes, however, that implementation of the landing obligation remains low overall
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the progress made in terms of stakeholder cooperation and the steps taken to improve selectivity; notes, however, that implementation of the landing obligation remains low overall and that discarding is occurring at rates roughly comparable to the years before the landing obligation was introduced
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the progress made in terms of stakeholder cooperation and the steps taken to improve selectivity; notes, however, that many fishermen do not understand the objectives and the process of implementation of the landing obligation
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Is concerned about the Council's approach of setting TACs based on total catch including so-called 'top-ups' to cover fish previously discarded, while compliance remains poor, is extremely concerned that this has resulted in an average upward adjustment of 50% for 2020, while the implementation of the necessary control measures remains insufficient;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Despite the weak implementation of the landing obligation, which effectiveness is unknown, it should be revised to consider the effects of climate change and the distribution shift of fish species;
source: 663.017
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2021-12-18Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2 |
|
| events/3/docs |
|
| events/4/summary |
|
2021-05-26Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2 |
|
| events/4 |
|
| forecasts |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament's voteNew
Procedure completed |
2021-05-19Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| events/3 |
|
2021-05-15Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts/0 |
|
| forecasts/0 |
|
2021-05-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| events/2/docs |
|
2021-05-07Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| events/2/summary |
|
2021-05-03Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| events/0/body |
EP
|
| events/1/body |
EP
|
| events/2/body |
EP
|
2021-04-28Show (10) Changes | Timetravel
| commission |
|
| docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE659.055New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PECH-PR-659055_EN.html |
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE663.017New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PECH-AM-663017_EN.html |
| events/0 |
|
| events/0 |
|
| events/1 |
|
| events/2 |
|
| forecasts/0/title |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Indicative plenary sitting date |
| procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament's vote |
2021-03-27Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2021-03-03Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2021-02-25Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts/0/date |
Old
2021-04-26T00:00:00New
2021-05-17T00:00:00 |
2021-02-24Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2021-02-17Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2021-02-16Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| docs/1 |
|
| forecasts/0/date |
Old
2021-03-08T00:00:00New
2021-04-26T00:00:00 |
2020-12-09Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2020-11-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/0/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE659.055
|
2020-11-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs |
|
2020-07-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
2020-07-03Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
2020-06-30Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts |
|
2020-05-25Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
2020-05-09Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2020-04-20Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/rapporteur |
|
2020-03-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/shadows |
|
2020-01-07Show (3) Changes
| events |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |