REPORT 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
8.12.2014 - (COM(2014)0457 – C8‑0102/2014 – 2014/0213(COD)) - ***I
Committee on Fisheries
Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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) | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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) | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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) | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 |
||||