Procedure : 2014/0213(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A8-0057/2014

Texts tabled :

A8-0057/2014

Debates :

Votes :

PV 13/01/2015 - 8.6
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P8_TA(2015)0005

REPORT     ***I
PDF 581kWORD 317k
8.12.2014
PE 539.617v02-00 A8-0057/2014

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area

(COM(2014)0457 – C8‑0102/2014 – 2014/0213(COD))

Committee on Fisheries

Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato

AMENDMENTS
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area

(COM(2014)0457 – C8‑0102/2014 – 2014/0213(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–       having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2014)0457),

–       having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0102/2014),

–       having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–       having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 15 October 2014(1),

–       having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–       having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0057/2014),

1.      Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.      Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.      Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) At its Annual Sessions in 2011 and 2012, the GFCM adopted measures for the sustainable exploitation of red coral in its area of competence to be implemented in Union law. One of those measures concerns the use of Remotely Operated under-water Vehicles (ROVs). The GFCM decided that ROVs in zones under national jurisdiction exclusively for observation and prospection of red coral on the basis of Recommendation GFCM/35/2011/2, are no longer to be allowed after 2014. According to another measure laid down in recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1, red coral catches are to be landed only in a limited number of ports with adequate port facilities and the lists of designated ports are to be communicated to the GFCM Secretariat. Any changes affecting the lists of ports designated by Member States should be communicated to the European Commission for further transmission to the GFCM Secretariat.

(4) At its Annual Sessions in 2011 and 2012, the GFCM adopted measures for the sustainable exploitation of red coral in its area of competence to be implemented in Union law. One of those measures concerns the use of Remotely Operated under-water Vehicles (ROVs). The GFCM decided that ROVs in zones under national jurisdiction exclusively for observation and prospection of red coral on the basis of Recommendation GFCM/35/2011/2, are no longer to be allowed after 2014, unless scientific advice states otherwise. However, in line with that Recommendation, the use of ROVs should be allowed in the case of Member States which have not yet authorised them for prospection and may wish to do so, provided that scientific results obtained in the context of management plans show no negative impact on the sustainable exploitation of red coral. The use of ROVs may also be authorised for a limited period not extending beyond 2015, for scientific experimental campaigns both for observation and for harvesting. According to another measure laid down in recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1, red coral catches are to be landed only in a limited number of ports with adequate port facilities and the lists of designated ports are to be communicated to the GFCM Secretariat. Any changes affecting the lists of ports designated by Member States should be communicated to the European Commission for further transmission to the GFCM Secretariat.

Justification

The last sentence of paragraph 3 (a) of the GFCM recommendation 35/2011/2 provides that “The authorisation of ROV for prospection shall only be allowed until 2015, unless scientific advice states otherwise.” Furthermore exceptions under certain circumstances are foreseen by the Recommendation.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) In order to ensure that the Union continues to fulfil its obligations under the GFCM Agreement, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission concerning authorisations to derogate from the prohibition to harvest red coral at depths less than 50 m and to depart from the minimum basal diameter of red coral colonies. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

(9) In order to ensure that the Union continues to fulfil its obligations under the GFCM Agreement, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission concerning authorisations to derogate from the prohibition to harvest red coral at depths less than 50 m and to depart from the minimum basal diameter of red coral colonies. Member States which have already transposed recommendation GFCM/35/2011/2 and developed appropriate national management frameworks, and which have already informed the Commission to that effect, should not be subject to the derogation procedure. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

Justification

The Commission´s proposal is ignoring measures that are already in place at national level in line with GFCM recommendations. Member States having already transposed these recommendations, whose adoption dates back to 2011, 2012 and 2013, should not be constraint to submit today to the Commission requests for the derogations foreseen in the recommendations, taking also into consideration the fact that the EC has failed to transpose them up to date.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 b – paragraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The harvesting of red coral shall be prohibited at depth less than 50 m.

1. The harvesting of red coral shall be prohibited at depth less than 50 m until scientific studies, as validated by the GFCM's Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), indicate otherwise.

Justification

The GFCM's Recommendation 35/2011/2 foresees the possibility to harvest red coral at depth less than 50 m. in case scientific studies indicate otherwise.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 b – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27 to grant derogations from paragraph 1. Those delegated acts shall include rules ensuring scientific evaluation of the zones subject to derogations.

2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27 to grant derogations from paragraph 1. Those delegated acts shall include rules ensuring scientific evaluation of the zones subject to derogations. Member States which have already transposed recommendation GFCM/35/2011/2 and developed appropriate national management frameworks, and which have already informed the Commission to that effect, shall not be subject to the derogation procedure under this Article. .

Justification

The Commission´s proposal is ignoring measures that are already in place at national level according to the GFCM recommendations. Member States having already transposed these recommendations, whose adoption dates back to 2011, 2012 and 2013, should not be constraint to submit today to the Commission requests for the derogations foreseen in the recommendations, taking also into consideration the fact that the EC has failed to transpose them up to date.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 c – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27 to authorise, by way of derogation from paragraph 1, a maximum tolerance limit of 10% in live weight of undersized (<7 mm) colonies of red coral.

2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27 to authorise, by way of derogation from paragraph 1, a maximum tolerance limit of 10 % in live weight of undersized (<7 mm) colonies of red coral. Member States which have already transposed recommendation GFCM/35/2011/2 and developed appropriate national management frameworks, and which have already informed the Commission to that effect, shall not be subject to the derogation procedure under this Article.

Justification

The Commission´s proposal is ignoring measures that are already in place at national level in line with the GFCM Recommendations. Member States having already transposed these recommendations, which were adopted in 2011, 2012 and 2013, should not be constraint to submit today to the Commission requests for the derogations foreseen in the recommendations, taking also into consideration the fact that the EC has failed to transpose them up to date.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 c – paragraph 3 – point b

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) specific monitoring and control programmes stating objectives, priorities and benchmarks for inspection activities are in place.

(b) specific monitoring and control programmes are in place.

Justification

The amendment takes in account the wording of paragraph 2 of the GFCM Recommendation 36/2012/1 regarding the derogation on undersized red coral colonies. The Commission´s text adds obligations that are not included in the Recommendation.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 d – paragraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the harvesting of red coral, the only permitted gear shall be a hammer used manually by professional fishermen.

1. For the harvesting of red coral, the only permitted gear shall be a hammer used manually by fishermen recognised as such by the Member State concerned.

Justification

Given the different regulations regarding fisheries training and qualifications in each MS, the mention of the term "professional" may lead to new administrative and financial obligations to current licensed fishermen; on the other hand, there is no definition of "professional fisherman" in Community legislation.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 d – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The use of Remotely Operated under-water Vehicles for the exploitation of red coral shall be prohibited. That prohibition shall cover, as from 1 January 2015, the use of Remotely Operated under-water Vehicles which may have been authorized by Member States in zones under national jurisdiction exclusively for observation and prospection of red coral on the basis of paragraphs 3(a) or 3(b) of recommendation GFCM/35/2011/2.

2. The use of Remotely Operated under-water Vehicles for the exploitation of red coral shall be prohibited. Unless scientific advice states otherwise, that prohibition shall cover, as from 1 January 2016, the use of Remotely Operated under-water Vehicles which may have been authorized by Member States in zones under national jurisdiction exclusively for observation and prospection of red coral on the basis of paragraphs 3(a) or 3(b) of recommendation GFCM/35/2011/2.

Justification

The last sentence of paragraph 3 (a) of the GFCM Recommendation 35/2011/2 provides that “The authorisation of ROV for prospection shall only be allowed until 2015, unless scientific advice states otherwise.”

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 d – paragraph 2 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a. Paragraph 2 shall not apply in relation to Member States which have not yet authorised the use of ROVs for prospection and may wish to do so. Such authorisation shall be granted only on the basis of scientific results obtained in the context of national management frameworks and showing no negative impact on the sustainable exploitation of red coral.

Justification

This is in line with the paragraph 3 (b) of the GFCM recommendation 35/2011/2.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 d – paragraph 2 b (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2b. The use of ROVs may be authorised in zones under national jurisdiction only and within a framework allowing for scientific experimental campaigns both for observation and harvesting during a limited period not extending beyond 2015, carried out under the supervision of national research institutions and/or in collaboration with national or international bodies as well as any other relevant stakeholders.

Justification

This is in line with paragraph 3 (c) of the GFCM recommendation 35/2011/2.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 f – paragraph 1 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a. Fishing vessels shall not bring seabirds ashore except within the framework of national plans for the conservation of seabirds or to secure assistance for the recovery of harmed individual seabirds, and provided that the competent national authorities have been duly and officially informed, prior to the vessel concerned returning to port, of the intention to bring such seabirds ashore.

Justification

A new paragraph is added in order to authorize retaining on board seabirds only in very justified cases.

Amendment   12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Artícle 16 g – paragraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Masters of fishing vessels shall promptly release unharmed and alive sea turtles incidentally taken in fishing gears back to the sea.

1. Specimens of sea turtles incidentally taken in fishing gears shall be safely handled and released unharmed and alive, to the extent that this is possible.

Justification

Word for word transposition of the GFCM recommendation into the Community regulation.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 g – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Masters of fishing vessels shall not bring ashore sea turtles, unless as part of a specific rescue programme and provided that the competent national authorities concerned have been duly and officially informed prior to returning to port.

2. Masters of fishing vessels shall not bring ashore sea turtles, unless as part of a specific rescue or national conservation programme or unless this is otherwise required in order to rescue and secure assistance for the recovery of harmed and comatose individual sea turtles and provided that the competent national authorities concerned have been duly and officially informed prior to returning to port.

Justification

The possibility to land sea turtles under national conservation plans or in case it is needed in order to rescue a harmed animal, is added to this paragraph.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 g –paragraph 3

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Vessels using purse seines for small pelagic species or surrounding nets without purse line for pelagic species shall not encircle sea turtles.

3. To the extent practicable, vessels using purse seines for small pelagic species or surrounding nets without purse line for pelagic species shall avoid encircling sea turtles.

Justification

This is in line with the GFCM Recommendation 35/2011/4.

Amendment   15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 h – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Masters of fishing vessels having incidentally taken specimens of monk seals in their fishing gears shall promptly release them unharmed and alive. The carcass of dead specimens shall be landed and shall be seized and destroyed by the national authorities.

2. Specimens of monk seals incidentally taken in fishing gears shall be released unharmed and alive. Should such a monk seal be already dead, the carcass shall be landed and the national authorities notified at the latest upon arrival in port.

Justification

Word for word transposition of the GFCM recommendation into the Community regulation.

Amendment   16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 i

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Masters of fishing vessels shall promptly return to the sea cetaceans incidentally caught in fishing gears.

Specimens of cetaceans incidentally taken in fishing gears shall be safely handled and released unharmed and alive, to the extent that this is possible.

Justification

Word for word transposition of the GFCM recommendation into the Community regulation.

Amendment   17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 j – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Fishing vessels that have incidentally caught sharks and rays species included in Annex II to the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean shall promptly release them unharmed and alive.

2. Fishing vessels that have incidentally caught sharks and rays of the species included in Annex II to the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean shall promptly release them if they are alive.

Justification

Sharks and rays that are caught alive are not always unharmed. However, injured ones should also be released, so that they nevertheless have some chance of survival.

Amendment   18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 l – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Vessels equipped with trawl nets and purse seines, irrespective of the vessel’s length overall, are classified as fishing actively for small pelagic stocks when sardine and/anchovy account for at least 50% of the catch in live weight in any given fishing trip.

2. Vessels equipped with trawl nets and purse seines, irrespective of the vessel’s length overall, are classified as fishing actively for small pelagic stocks when sardine and/anchovy account for at least 50% of the catch in live weight.

Justification

Recommendation GFCM/37/2013/1, Article 22, should be transposed in its entirety, as recommended in the GFCM recommendation, without unnecessary additions from the Commission.

Amendment   19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 16 l – paragraph 4

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Member States shall ensure that vessels equipped with trawl nets and purse seines for small pelagic stocks as identified in paragraph 2 do not operate for more than 20 fishing days per month and do not exceed 180 fishing days per year.

4. Member States shall ensure that vessels equipped with trawl nets and purse seines for small pelagic stocks as identified in paragraph 2 do not operate for more than 20 fishing days per month and do not exceed 180 fishing days with a registered catch per year.

Justification

The Commission’s proposal ignores the fact that there is no guarantee of catching fish on every fishing trip, for instance, a broken net could result in no catch. It would therefore be inappropriate to take a fishing day away from fishermen if they have no registered catch for that day.

Amendment   20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 3

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 17 a

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Masters of fishing vessels authorised to harvest red coral shall have on board a logbook in which are reported the daily catches of red coral and fishing activity by area and depths, including the number of fishing days and diving. That information shall be communicated to the competent national authorities without delay.

Fishing vessels authorised to harvest red coral shall have on board a logbook in which are reported the daily catches of red coral and fishing activity by area and depths, including the number of fishing days and diving. That information shall be communicated to the competent national authorities within the deadlines laid down by the rules in force.

Justification

The control regulation 1224/2009, the related implementing regulation 404/2011 and the delegated and implementing acts associated with these texts lay down the notification deadlines and derogations. The relevant deadlines should therefore be clarified, rather than contributing to a situation of legal uncertainty.

Amendment   21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 3

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 17 b – paragraph 1 – point d

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) any event of incidental catch and release of cetaceans, indicating at least the fisheries concerned, characteristics of gear type, times, locations (either by Geographical Sub-Areas or statistical rectangles, as defined in Annex I) and affected cetaceans species;

(d) any event of incidental catch and release of cetaceans, indicating at least the fisheries concerned, characteristics of gear type, times, and locations (either by Geographical Sub-Areas or statistical rectangles, as defined in Annex I), and whether any such cetacean is a dolphin or another species of cetacean;

Justification

It is rarely possible to identify the specific cetacean species, in particular that of the dolphin family (bottle-nose dolphins, striped dolphins, Risso's dolphins, pilot whales, etc.) on the mere basis of fishermen’s knowledge. However, it is relatively simple to distinguish between a dolphin and another cetacean.

Amendment  22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 3

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 17 b – paragraph 1 – point e

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) any event of incidental catch and release of sharks and rays species listed in Annex II or in Annex III to the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean.

(e) any event of incidental catch and, where required, release of sharks and rays of the species listed in Annex II or in Annex III to the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean.

Justification

It is necessary to clarify the text of the EC, as certain species listed in Annex III to the Protocol in question could indeed be caught (and, therefore, there is no obligation to release them).

Amendment  23

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 3

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 17 b – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. By 31 December 2014 at the latest, Member States shall establish the rules recording incidental catches referred to in paragraph 1 by the masters of fishing vessels which are not subject to the keeping of a fishing logbook pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.

deleted

Justification

The Commission's text provides rules for recording catches by vessels which are not required to carry logbook. This provision should be established only for vessels that have the obligation to carry logbooks, given the complexity of the application of this new requirement.

Amendment  24

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 23 a – paragraph 1 – introductory part

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. By 15 November of each year, Member States shall submit to the Commission:

1. By 15 December of each year, Member States shall submit to the Commission:

Justification

The deadline should be delayed to 15 December, given that, for example in the case of the red coral, the fishing season ends on 31 October. Therefore the deadline proposed by the Commission is too short as national data would not be available. The deadline for the communication of the data from the Commission to the Secretary of the GFCM could be delayed accordingly.

Amendment   25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011

Article 23 a – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Commission shall transmit the information referred to in paragraph 1 to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM by 15 December of each year.

2. The Commission shall transmit the information referred to in paragraph 1 to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM by 31 December of each year.

Justification

It is proposed that the date suggested by the Commission be put back, in line with the previous amendment.

(1)

Not yet published in the Official Journal.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) was set up by an international agreement in 1949. The area covered by the agreement comprises the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and connecting waters. The main tasks of the GFCM are to promote the development, conservation, and rational management of living aquatic resources, to formulate and recommend conservation measures and to promote cooperative projects in the area of training. The GFCM's Contracting Parties are: the European Community, Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Egypt, France, Japan, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Monaco, Romania, Syria, Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey.

At its Annual Sessions in 2011 and 2012, the GFCM adopted measures for the sustainable exploitation of red coral in its area of competence to be implemented in Union law.

The GFCM adopted other recommendations laying down:

   measures for the mitigation of incidental catches of seabirds, sea turtles, monk seals and cetaceans in fishing activities in the GFCM Agreement area to be implemented in Union law;

   measures aiming to ensure in its area of competence a high level of protection from fishing activities to sharks and rays, and in particular to the shark and ray species listed as endangered or threatened under Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean to the Barcelona Convention;

   measures for fisheries exploiting small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea which should be implemented in Union law.

Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011of the European Parliament and of the Council lays down certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM Agreement area. It is proposed to amend this Regulation to include the measures contained in the GFCM recommendations.

The proposal contains technical measures for the sustainable exploitation of red coral, the mitigation of incidental captures of seabirds, sea turtles and cetaceans and the conservation of monk seals, sharks and rays in the GFCM Agreement area.

Such measures go beyond the protection already ensured to these species at EU level by the Habitats Directive and other Union acts and include specific recording and reporting obligations for both operators and Member States.

The proposal also implements in Union law certain measures for fisheries for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea.

Position of the rapporteur

The rapporteur welcomes this proposal which aims to transpose into Community law GFCM recommendations. However he notes that the proposal is ignoring measures that are already in place at national level in line with these recommendations. Member States having already transposed these recommendations, which were adopted in 2011, 2012 and 2013, should not be constraint to submit today to the Commission requests for derogations foreseen by the GFCM, taking also into consideration the fact that the EC has failed to transpose them up to date.

Furthermore the Commission proposal is in many cases stricter than the GFCM recommendations. For example, it bans the use of Remotely Operated underwater Vehicles (ROVs) for the exploitation of red coral after 2014, whereas the relevant GFCM Recommendation does not preclude that it might be used in case scientific advice states otherwise. Moreover, on the basis of scientific results obtained in the context of national management plans showing no negative impact on the sustainable exploitation of red coral, the Recommendation allows the use of ROVs in Member States which have not used them yet for prospection and may wish to do so. The GFCM Recommendation also allows the use of ROVs for scientific experimental campaigns until 2016.

Other examples of the extreme zeal manifested by the EC in the interpretation of the GFCM recommendations: it is not always possible to promptly release unharmed and alive sea turtles incidentally taken in fishing gears; this is recognised by the GFCM - which requests to do it “to the extent possible”- but not in the Commission proposal. The same flexibility has to be applied to cases where vessels using purse seines or surrounding nets have accidentally captured sea turtles. Regarding reporting obligation, it should not apply to vessels that are not obliged to carry a logbook. And the list of examples can go on...

The rapporteur is of the opinion that the GFCM recommendations sets a sufficient level of regulatory protection that have to be implemented first by contracting parties before adopting further measures.


PROCEDURE

Title

Provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area

References

COM(2014)0457 – C8-0102/2014 – 2014/0213(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

11.7.2014

 

 

 

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

PECH

17.7.2014

 

 

 

Rapporteurs

       Date appointed

Gabriel Mato

17.9.2014

 

 

 

Discussed in committee

23.9.2014

16.10.2014

5.11.2014

 

Date adopted

3.12.2014

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

24

4

1

Members present for the final vote

Marco Affronte, Clara Eugenia Aguilera García, Renata Briano, Alain Cadec, David Coburn, Richard Corbett, Diane Dodds, Linnéa Engström, Ian Hudghton, Carlos Iturgaiz, Werner Kuhn, António Marinho e Pinto, Gabriel Mato, Norica Nicolai, Liadh Ní Riada, Ulrike Rodust, Remo Sernagiotto, Ricardo Serrão Santos, Isabelle Thomas, Peter van Dalen, Jarosław Wałęsa

Substitutes present for the final vote

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, José Blanco López, Ole Christensen, Ian Duncan, Sylvie Goddyn, Anja Hazekamp, Mike Hookem, Francisco José Millán Mon

Date tabled

8.12.2014

Legal notice