Procedure : 2014/0285(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A8-0128/2015

Texts tabled :

A8-0128/2015

Debates :

PV 27/04/2015 - 18
CRE 27/04/2015 - 18
PV 22/06/2016 - 19
CRE 22/06/2016 - 19

Votes :

PV 28/04/2015 - 7.8
CRE 28/04/2015 - 7.8
PV 23/06/2016 - 8.8

Texts adopted :

P8_TA(2015)0104
P8_TA(2016)0287

REPORT     ***I
PDF 740kWORD 423k
9 April 2015
PE 546.811v03-00 A8-0128/2015

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007

(COM(2014)0614 – C8-0174/2014 – 2014/0285(COD))

Committee on Fisheries

Rapporteur: Jarosław Wałęsa

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 establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007

(COM(2014)0614 – C8-0174/2014 – 2014/0285(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2014)0614),

–  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 (C8-0174/2014),

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

–  having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(1),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0128/2015),

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 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The United Nations Convention of 10 December 1982 on the Law of the Sea16, to which the Union is a contracting party, provides for conservation obligations, including the maintaining or restoring populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.

(1) The United Nations Convention of 10 December 1982 on the Law of the Sea16, to which the Union is a contracting party, provides for conservation obligations, including the maintaining or restoring populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors.

__________________

__________________

16 OJ L 179, 23.6.1998, p. 3

16 OJ L 179, 23.6.1998, p. 3.

Justification

The additional words are an important qualifier for the UNCLOS provision, given the significant economic advantages from having stocks above levels capable of producing MSY.

Amendment    2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes the rules of the common fisheries policy ('CFP') in line with the international obligations of the Union. The objectives of the CFP are, amongst others, to ensure that fishing and aquaculture are environmentally sustainable in the long-term, to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.

(4) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes the rules of the common fisheries policy ('CFP') in line with the international obligations of the Union. The objectives of the CFP are, amongst others, to ensure that fishing and aquaculture are sustainable from a socio-economic and environmental point of view in the long term, in keeping with a balanced application of the precautionary approach and of the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.

Amendment    3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(7a) The multi-species management plan established by this Regulation requires greater account to be taken of the different ecological roles and functions of the species covered by the plan. Since the various species interact to a great extent, catches cannot be sustainably maximised for all species simultaneously and decisions are needed about which species should be prioritised.

Justification

The decision on the specific targets for FMSY and biomass levels should take into account the updated estimates of FMSY ranges expected shortly from ICES and reflect accordingly the particularities of the multi-species fisheries management.

Amendment    4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(7b) The Council and the European Parliament should take into account the latest recommendations and reports from ICES as regards maximum sustainable yield to ensure that this Regulation is as up-to-date as possible.

Amendment    5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(7c) In accordance with Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1a (hereinafter the 'Marine Strategy Framework Directive'), natural size and age distributions of commercial fish stocks are important indicators for achieving good ecological status of the marine environment.

 

_________________________

 

1a Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19).

Amendment    6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) It is appropriate to establish a multi-species fisheries plan taking into account the dynamics between the stocks of cod, herring and sprat, and also considering the by-catch species of the fisheries for these stocks, namely the Baltic stocks of plaice, brill, flounder and turbot. The objective of this plan should be to aim at achieving and maintaining maximum sustainable yields for the stocks concerned.

(8) The ultimate goal is to establish a multi-species fisheries plan taking into account the dynamics between the stocks of cod, herring and sprat, and also considering the by-catch species of the fisheries for these stocks, namely the Baltic stocks of plaice, brill, flounder and turbot. The objective of this plan should be to re-establish, achieve and maintain populations of the species concerned above the levels that are capable of producing sustainable yields for the stocks concerned, minimising as far as possible the impact on other species, such as seabirds, and on the wider marine environment, in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013.

Justification

One of the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy reform (Article 2(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013) is to minimise the negative impact of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. The establishment of a multi-species plan is the ultimate goal. The Commission's formulation suggests that the plan comprises explicitly species' interactions. The current proposal, however, merely includes single-species assessments.

Amendment    7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) The exploitation of cod and pelagic stocks should not jeopardise the sustainability of the stocks taken as by-catches in these fisheries, namely the Baltic stocks of plaice, brill, flounder and turbot. Therefore, the plan should also aim at ensuring the conservation of these by-catch stocks above biomass levels corresponding to precautionary approach.

(9) The exploitation of cod and pelagic stocks should not jeopardise the sustainability of the stocks taken as by-catches in these fisheries, namely the Baltic stocks of plaice, brill, flounder and turbot. Therefore, the plan should also aim at ensuring the conservation of these by-catch stocks above biomass levels corresponding to a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.

Justification

To be consistent with the CFP objective following the reform, to maintain stocks above levels capable of producing MSY.

Amendment    8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(9a) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2015 further aims to gradually eliminate discards, taking into account the best scientific advice, by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches. This aim can be achieved by improving the selectivity of fishing gears and practices.

Justification

CFP objective in Article 2.5(a) of Regulation 1380/2013.

Amendment    9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 requires that fishing opportunities be fixed in accordance with the targets set out in the multiannual plans.

(11) Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 requires that fishing opportunities be fixed in accordance with the targets set out in the multiannual plans. The levels to be achieved in terms of mortality by fishery and biomass ought to take account of the most up-to-date scientific advice.

Amendment    10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) These targets should therefore be established and expressed in terms of fishing mortality rates, based on scientific advice19.

(12) These targets should therefore be established and expressed in terms of fishing mortality rates, based on scientific advice19, that restore and maintain populations of harvested species above levels which can produce maximum sustainable yield. The maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate should be the upper limit for exploitation.

__________________

__________________

19 ICES technical services, September 2014 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/Special%20Requests/EU_Fmsy_range_for_Baltic_cod_and_pelagic_stocks.pdf

19 ICES technical services, September 2014 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/Special%20Requests/EU_Fmsy_range_for_Baltic_cod_and_pelagic_stocks.pdf

Justification

Only a fishing mortality rate (F) below the maximum sustainable yield fishing mortality (FMSY) will eventually lead to recovery of fish stocks above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield in line with Article 2(2) and 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Therefore, the Baltic Multiannual Plan should use scientific advice on FMSY as the upper limit for ranges. The footnote with reference to a specific ICES document should be deleted here.

Amendment    11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) It is necessary to establish conservation reference points to allow for additional precaution when a stock size is reduced to certain critical level posing serious risk. Such conservation reference points should be determined at levels of minimum spawning biomass of a stock that is consistent with full reproductive capacity. Remedial measures should be envisaged in case the stock size falls below minimum spawning biomass.

(13) It is necessary to establish conservation reference points to allow for additional precautions when a stock size is reduced to certain critical level posing serious risk. Such conservation reference points should be determined at levels of biomass corresponding to maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) of a stock. Remedial measures should be envisaged in order to prevent the stock size from falling below that level.

Justification

In the Commission proposal, measures will only be taken when the biomass falls below a critical level known as Bpa. This is not a very ambitious approach. As the biomass corresponding to Maximum Sustainable Yield already constitutes a lower limit that should not be exceeded, conservation reference points should also be set at this level so that urgent action is taken in case biomass drops below it. Action should be taken before the stock gets to this point, rather than waiting until the problem has been discovered. This would help to ensure that stocks remain within the range of objectives.

Amendment    12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) In the case of stocks taken as by-catches, in the absence of scientific advice on such levels of minimum spawning biomass, specific conservation measures should be adopted when scientific advice states that a stock is under threat.

(14) In the case of stocks taken as by-catches, in the absence of scientific advice on such levels of minimum spawning biomass, specific conservation measures should be adopted when other indicators make it possible to give scientific advice that states that a stock is under threat. The scientific data on spawning biomass levels for by-catches must be speedily made available so that the necessary measures can be taken.

Justification

The initial formulation is somewhat illogical; working on the basis of scientific opinion cannot be required in the absence of a scientific opinion.

Amendment    13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) In order to comply with the landing obligation established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the plan should provide for other management measures as set out under points (a) to (c) of Article 15(4) of that Regulation. Such measures should be laid down by way of delegated acts.

(16) In order to comply with the landing obligation established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the plan should provide for other management measures as set out under points (a) to (c) of Article 15(4) of that Regulation. Such measures should be laid down by way of delegated acts after consultation with the advisory councils concerned.

Amendment    14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(16a) The Commission should take account of the opinion of the advisory councils concerned when adopting delegated acts to comply with the landing obligation laid down by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, so as to provide for other management measures as set out under points (a) to (c) of Article 15(4) of that Regulation.

Amendment    15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) The plan should also provide for certain accompanying technical measures to be adopted, by way of delegated acts, in order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the plan, in particular as regards the protection of juveniles or spawning fish. Pending the revision of Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/200520, it should also be envisaged that such measures may, where necessary for the achievement of the objectives of the plan, derogate from certain non-essential elements of that Regulation.

(17) The plan should also provide for certain accompanying technical measures to be adopted, by way of delegated acts after consultation with the advisory councils concerned, in order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the plan, in particular as regards the protection of juveniles or spawning fish. Pending the revision of Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/200520, it should also be envisaged that such measures may, where necessary for the achievement of the objectives of the plan, derogate from certain non-essential elements of that Regulation.

__________________

__________________

20 Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98 (OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, p. 1).

20 Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98 (OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, p. 1).

Amendment    16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(17a) The Commission should take account of the opinion of the advisory councils concerned when adopting certain accompanying technical measures to help achieve the plan’s objectives.

Amendment    17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) In order to adapt to the technical and scientific progress in a timely and proportionate fashion and to ensure flexibility and allow evolution of certain measures, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of supplementing this Regulation as regards remedial measures concerning plaice, flounder, turbot and brill, implementation of the landing obligation and technical measures. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at experts 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 Council.

(18) In order to adapt to technical and scientific progress in a timely and proportionate fashion and to ensure flexibility and allow evolution of certain measures, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of supplementing this Regulation as regards remedial measures concerning plaice, flounder, turbot and brill, implementation of the landing obligation and technical measures. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at the level of experts and specialist bodies in the Member States and the Union, involving both the European Parliament and the Council experts. Intensive debate with the stakeholders affected should be undertaken before a proposal for a specific measure is finalised. 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.

Amendment    18

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(18a) The Commission should take account of the opinion of the advisory councils concerned when adopting delegated acts to extend the scope of this Regulation with regard to remedial measures for plaice, flounder, turbot and brill, implementation of the landing obligation and technical measures.

Amendment    19

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(18b) When implementing the plan established by this Regulation, priority should be given to the application of the principle of regionalisation as established in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Amendment    20

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) In accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, where the Commission has been granted powers to adopt delegated acts in respect of certain conservation measures as set out in the plan, Member States having a direct management interest in the Baltic Sea fisheries should have the possibility to submit joint recommendations for such measures, so that these measures are well designed to correspond to the particularities of the Baltic Sea and its fisheries. The deadline for submitting these recommendations should be established, as required by Article 18(1) of that Regulation.

(19) In accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, where the Commission has been granted powers to adopt delegated acts in respect of certain conservation measures as set out in the plan, Member States and the advisory councils having a direct management interest in the Baltic Sea fisheries should have the possibility to submit joint recommendations for such measures, so that these measures are well designed to correspond to the particularities of the Baltic Sea and its fisheries. The deadline for submitting these recommendations should be established, as required by Article 18(1) of that Regulation.

Amendment    21

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(19a) To enhance the effectiveness and innovational aspects of the plan, joint recommendations and subsequent delegated acts should aim to ensure the inclusion of bottom-up and results-based approaches.

Justification

We should avoid that Member States adopt top-down processes to come up with regional joint recommendations. The joint recommendations should be based on a bottom-up approach involving stakeholders.

Amendment    22

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(19b) The Commission should take account of the opinion of the advisory councils concerned when adopting delegated acts regarding certain conservation measures provided for in the plan.

Amendment    23

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(22a) Rules should be laid down to ensure that financial support under Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a can be provided in the event of temporary cessation of fisheries.

 

___________

 

1a Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1).

Justification

Die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 508/2014 sieht die Möglichkeit vor, im Fall einer vorübergehenden Einstellung der Fischereitätigkeit Entschädigungen und Ausgleichszahlungen an Fischer und Eigner von Fischereifahrzeugen zu leisten, falls eine solche Einstellung eine unmittelbare Folge z. B. der Erhaltungsmaßnahmen ist. Voraussetzung hierfür ist, dass die vorübergehende Einstellung in einem Mehrjahresplan vorgesehen ist. Es bedarf also einer Regelung direkt im Mehrjahresplan, die die Möglich­keit der EMFF-Finanzierung für die vorübergehende Einstellung der Fangtätigkeit vor­sieht.

Amendment    24

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) As regards the time-frame, it is expected that for the stocks concerned maximum sustainable yield should be reached by 2015. It should be maintained from there on.

(25) As regards the time-frame, the stocks concerned should achieve the target by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis, by 2020 at the latest. The target should be maintained from those dates on.

Justification

The Commission's recital 25 bears an inconsistency as it combines an expectation ("expected") with an obligation ("should"). The amendment takes up the respective formulation from Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Amendment    25

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) In the absence of fishing effort regime it is necessary to delete the specific rules on special fishing permit and replacement of vessels or engines applicable to the Gulf of Riga. Accordingly, Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 should be amended.

deleted

Justification

As stated in the Treaty of Accession of Latvia and of Estonia, the specific measures safeguard the Gulf of Riga that is considered as a very sensitive eco-region. Currently, only Latvian and Estonian fishing vessels are authorised to fish in waters in question. If the ban is lifted,  these waters would become open to all fleets, e.g. industrial fisheries, thus threatening sustainability of the stocks, risking to break down the fragile balance of the ecosystem that has improved during the recent years due to the safeguarding policy.

Amendment    26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The plan shall also apply to plaice, flounder, turbot and brill in ICES Subdivisions 22-32 caught when fishing for the stocks concerned.

2. This Regulation also provides for measures in respect of by-catches of plaice, flounder, turbot and brill in ICES Subdivisions 22-32 to be applied when fishing for stocks referred to in paragraph 1.

Amendment    27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – points b and c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) ‘trapnet’ means large nets, anchored, fixed on stakes or occasionally floating, open at the surface and provided with various types of fish herding and retaining devices, and which are generally divided into chambers closed at the bottom by netting;

(b)‘trapnet, fyke-net and pound net’ means nets, anchored, fixed on stakes or occasionally floating and provided with various types of fish herding and retaining devices, and which are generally divided into chambers closed at the bottom by netting;

(c) ‘pots and creels’ mean small traps designed to catch crustaceans or fish in the form of cages or baskets made with various materials that are set on the seabed either singly or in rows; connected by ropes (buoy-lines) to buoys on the surface showing their position and having one or more openings or entrances;

(c) ‘pots and creels’ means traps designed to catch crustaceans or fish in the form of cages or baskets made with various materials that are set on the seabed either singly or in rows; connected by ropes (buoy-lines) to buoys on the surface showing their position and having one or more openings or entrances;

Amendment    28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The plan shall aim at contributing to the objectives of the common fisheries policy listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and in particular:

1. The plan shall ensure the achievement of the objectives of the common fisheries policy listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and in particular:

(a) achieving and maintaining maximum sustainable yield for the stocks concerned, and

(a) restoring and maintaining the stocks concerned above biomass levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield, and

(b) ensuring the conservation of the stocks of plaice, brill, flounder and turbot in line with the precautionary approach.

(b) contributing to the conservation of the stocks of plaice, brill, flounder and turbot through management of by-catches, in line with the precautionary approach.

2. The plan shall aim at contributing to the implementation of the landing obligation established in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for the stocks concerned and for plaice.

2. The plan shall contribute to the elimination of discards, taking into account the best available scientific advice, by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches, and to the implementation of the landing obligation established in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for the stocks concerned and for plaice.

Amendment    29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 3a

 

Coherence with Union environmental legislation

 

1. The plan shall apply the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.

 

2. In order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised and that fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment, the plan shall be coherent with, and shall contribute to achievement of the objectives of, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive so as to achieve good environmental status by 2020. In particular, it shall:

 

(a) aim to ensure that the conditions described in descriptor 3 contained in Annex I to that Directive are fulfilled;

 

(b) aim to contribute to the fulfilment of descriptors 1, 4 and 6 contained in Annex I to that Directive in proportion to the role played by fisheries in their fulfilment.

Justification

The scope of the Baltic Multiannual Plan needs to reflect the language which was agreed in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Moreover, the amendment guarantees coherence with recital (3) of the Commission proposal.

Amendment    30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The target fishing mortality shall be reached by 2015 and maintained onwards for the stocks concerned within the following ranges:

1. The fishing mortality target shall take into account the most recent scientific advice and shall, where possible, be achieved by 2015 and, on a progressive, incremental basis, by 2020 at the latest, and shall be maintained thereafter for the stocks concerned. The fishing mortality for the stocks concerned shall be set within the following ranges:

Stock

Target fishing mortality range

Stock

Fishing mortality target range

Western Baltic Cod

0.23-0.29

Western Baltic Cod

0 to FMSY

Eastern Baltic Cod

0.41-0.51

Eastern Baltic Cod

0 to FMSY

Central Baltic herring

0.23-0.29

Central Baltic herring

0 to FMSY

Gulf of Riga herring

0.32-0.39

Gulf of Riga herring

0 to FMSY

Bothnian Sea herring

0.13-0.17

Bothnian Sea herring

0 to FMSY

Bothnian Bay herring

Not defined

Bothnian Bay herring

0 to FMSY

Western Baltic herring

0.25-0.31

Western Baltic herring

0 to FMSY

Baltic Sprat

0.26-0.32

Baltic Sprat

0 to FMSY

 

Values for FMSY (fishing mortality consistent with achieving maximum sustainable yield) shall be taken from the latest reliable scientific advice available and Fishing mortality (F) should aim at 0.8 x FMSY.

Amendment    31

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a. This Regulation shall provide for the temporary cessation of fishing activities as defined in Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 508/2014, with financial support being provided under that Regulation.

Amendment    32

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The conservation reference points expressed in minimum spawning biomass level that is consistent with full reproductive capacity shall be for the stocks concerned as follows:

1. The conservation reference points that are consistent with full reproductive capacity shall be, for the stocks concerned, as follows:

Stock

Minimum spawning biomass level (in tonnes)

Stock

Minimum spawning biomass level (in tonnes)

Western Baltic cod

36 400

Western Baltic cod

36 400 for 2015 and BMSY for the remaining years

Eastern Baltic cod

88 200

Eastern Baltic cod

88 200 for 2015 and BMSY for the remaining years

Central Baltic herring

600 000

Central Baltic herring

600 000 for 2015 and BMSY for the remaining years

Gulf of Riga herring

Not defined

Gulf of Riga herring

Not defined for 2015 and BMSY for the remaining years

Bothnian Sea herring

Not defined

Bothnian Sea herring

Not defined for 2015 and BMSY for the remaining years

Bothnian Bay herring

Not defined

Bothnian Bay herring

Not defined for 2015 and BMSY for the remaining years

Western Baltic herring

110 000

Western Baltic herring

110 000 for 2015 and BMSY for the remaining years

Baltic sprat

570 000

Baltic sprat

570 000 for 2015 and BMSY for the remaining years

Justification

BMSY will produce the full reproductive capacity.

Amendment    33

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. When the spawning biomass of any of the stocks concerned for a certain year is below the minimum spawning biomass levels set out in paragraph 1, appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to precautionary levels. In particular, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 fishing opportunities shall be set at levels lower than those resulting in target fishing mortality ranges laid down in Article 4(1). These remedial measures may also include, as appropriate, the submission of legislative proposals by the Commission and emergency measures adopted by the Commission under Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

2. When the spawning biomass of any of the stocks concerned for a certain year is below the minimum spawning biomass levels set out in paragraph 1, appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure that the stocks concerned return to levels above those capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY) as soon as possible. In particular, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, fishing opportunities shall be set at levels lower than those resulting in target fishing mortality ranges laid down in Article 4(1) of this Regulation. These remedial measures may also include, as appropriate, the submission of legislative proposals by the Commission and emergency measures adopted by the Commission under Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Minimum spawning biomass levels (in tonnes) shall be set at the level of the Biological Precautionary Reference Point (PaRP).

Amendment    34

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 6

Article 6

Measures in case of threat to plaice, flounder, turbot and brill

Technical conservation measures for plaice, flounder, turbot and brill

1. When scientific advice states that the conservation of any of the Baltic stocks of plaice, flounder, turbot or brill is under threat, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 15 on specific conservation measures concerning the stock under threat and regarding any of the following:

1. When scientific advice indicates that remedial measures are needed to ensure that the Baltic stocks of plaice, flounder, turbot or brill are managed in accordance with the precautionary approach, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 15 on specific conservation measures for by-catches of plaice, flounder, turbot and brill and regarding the following technical measures:

(c) (a) adaptation of fishing capacity and fishing effort;

(a) adaptation of fishing capacity and fishing effort;

(d)(b) technical measures, including

 

(1) characteristics of fishing gear, in particular mesh size, twine thickness, size of the gear);

(b) characteristics of fishing gear, in particular mesh size, twine thickness, size of the gear;

(2) use of the fishing gear, in particular immersion time, depth of gear deployment);

(c) use of the fishing gear, in particular immersion time and depth of gear deployment;

(3) prohibition or limitation to fish in specific areas;

(d) prohibition or limitation to fish in specific areas;

(4) prohibition or limitation to fish during specific time periods;

(e) prohibition or limitation to fish during specific time periods;

(5) minimum conservation reference size.

(f) minimum conservation reference size;

 

(g) other characteristics linked to selectivity.

2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall aim at achieving the objective set out in Article 3(1)(b) and be based on scientific advice.

2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall aim at achieving the objective set out in point (b) of Article 3(1) and coherence with Union environmental legislation as set out in Article 3a, and shall be based on the best available scientific advice.

3. The Member States concerned may submit joint recommendations in accordance with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for specific conservation measures as referred to in paragraph 1.

3. The Member States concerned may submit joint recommendations in accordance with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for specific conservation measures as referred to in paragraph 1.

 

3a. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult the European Parliament and the advisory committees concerned.

 

3b. The Commission shall, in consultation with the Member States concerned, analyse the impact of the delegated acts referred to in paragraph 1 one year after their adoption, and every year thereafter. If such analysis shows that a delegated act is not adequate to deal with the current situation, the Member States concerned may submit a joint recommendation in accordance with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Justification

We feel it is necessary to include the European Parliament's participation before the adoption of the delegated act. Often, the narrow time frames for halting or rejecting delegated acts have not enabled Parliament to assess the substance of the matter properly.

Amendment    35

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

By way of derogation from Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 the landing obligation shall not apply to the stocks concerned and plaice when fishing with the following gears: trapnets, pots and creels.

By way of derogation from Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the landing obligation shall not apply when fishing with the following gears: trapnets, pots and creels, fyke-nets and pound nets.

Justification

The current discard plan only refers to cod and salmon, so it is not appropriate to add sprat and herring, given their lower survivability.

Amendment    36

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall aim at achieving the objectives set out in Article 3 and in particular the protection of juveniles or spawning fish.

2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall aim at achieving the objectives set out in Article 3, in particular the protection of juveniles or spawning fish, as well as coherence with Union environmental legislation as set out in Article 3a, and ensuring that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised.

Amendment    37

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point a

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) specifications of target species and mesh sizes laid down in Annexes II and III referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005;

(a) specifications of target species, mesh sizes and minimum conservation reference sizes laid down in Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 14(1) of that Regulation;

Amendment    38

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point f

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f) the trawling prohibition for the Gulf of Riga laid down in Article 22 thereof.

deleted

Justification

Provisions included in the Art 22 of the (EC) 2187/2005 implement the specific measures to safeguard the Gulf of Riga - a very sensitive eco- region. These measures are set out in the Treaty of Accession Annex III, part „Fisheries”. Trawling prohibition in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Riga should be kept aside from the listed measures as current management model implemented in this area. It is a part of safeguarding policy that has stabilized situation in the Gulf of Riga thus fostering the increase of herring stocks that now are in line with MSY levels set out for relevant stock.

Amendment    39

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a. Moreover, the Commission shall endeavour to take account of the most recent scientific studies, including ICES studies, before adopting technical measures.

Justification

The Commission must adopt the necessary measures to preserve stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic. But it must do so on the basis of recent scientific studies so the fisheries concerned are not excessively penalised.

Amendment    40

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4b. During the cod spawning season, pelagic fishing using stationary gear with a mesh size of less than 110 mm, or 120 mm in the case of outrigger gear, shall be prohibited.

Amendment    41

Proposal for a regulation

Chapter VI a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

CHAPTER VIa

 

SPECIFIC MEASURES

 

Article 9a

 

Specific measures

 

1. Any fishing activity shall be prohibited from 1 May to 31 October within the areas enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following positions, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 coordinate system:

 

(a) Area 1:

 

– 55° 45′ N, 15° 30′ E

 

– 55° 45′ N, 16° 30′ E

 

– 55° 00′ N, 16° 30′ E

 

– 55° 00′ N, 16° 00′ E

 

– 55° 15′ N, 16° 00′ E

 

– 55° 15′ N, 15° 30′ E

 

– 55° 45′ N, 15° 30′ E

 

(b) Area 2:

 

– 55° 00′ N, 19° 14′ E

 

– 54° 48′ N, 19° 20′ E

 

– 54° 45′ N, 19° 19′ E

 

– 54° 45′ N, 18° 55′ E

 

– 55° 00′ N, 19° 14′ E

 

(c) Area 3:

 

– 56° 13′ N, 18° 27′ E

 

– 56° 13′ N, 19° 31′ E

 

– 55° 59′ N, 19° 13′ E

 

– 56° 03′ N, 19° 06′ E

 

– 56° 00′ N, 18° 51′ E

 

– 55° 47′ N, 18° 57′ E

 

– 55° 30′ N, 18° 34′ E

 

– 56° 13′ N, 18° 27′ E.

 

2. All Union vessels of an overall length equal to or greater than eight metres carrying on board or using any gears for cod fishing in the Baltic Sea in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 shall hold a special permit for fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea.

 

3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 15 to amend this Article, where necessary for the achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 3, and in particular the protection of juveniles or spawning fish.

Amendment    42

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 10

Article 10

Regional cooperation

Regional cooperation

1. Article 18 (1) to (6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 shall apply to the measures under this Chapter.

1. Article 18 (1) to (6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 shall apply to the measures referred to in Articles 6, 8 and 9 of this Regulation.

2. Member States concerned may submit joint recommendations in accordance with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 within the following deadlines:

2. Member States concerned may, after having consulted the regional advisory councils, submit any joint recommendations referred to in Articles 6(3), 8(3) and 9(4) for the first time not later than 12 months after the entry into force of this Regulation, and thereafter 12 months after each submission of the evaluation of the plan in accordance with Article 14, but not later than 1 September for measures concerning the Member States. They may also submit such recommendations in the event of any abrupt change in the situation for any of the stocks covered by the plan, if the measures recommended are deemed necessary or justified by scientific advice.

a) for the measures set out in Article 6(1) and concerning a given calendar year, not later than 1 September of the previous year;

 

b) for the measures set out in Articles 8(1) and 9(1), for the first time not later than six months after the entry into force of this Regulation and thereafter six months after each submission the evaluation of the plan in accordance with Article 14.

 

 

2a. The advisory councils concerned may also submit recommendations in accordance with the timetable set out in paragraph 2.

 

2b. Any deviations by the Commission from the joint recommendations shall be presented to the European Parliament and to the Council and shall be capable of being scrutinised.

Amendment    43

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 12

Article 12

Prior notifications

Prior notifications

1. By way of derogation from Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the prior notification obligation laid down in that Article shall apply to

1. By way of derogation from Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the prior notification obligation laid down in that Article shall apply:

masters of Union fishing vessels of eight metres overall length or more retaining on board at least 300 kg of cod

(a) in relation to fishing vessels targeting cod, to masters of Union fishing vessels of eight metres overall length or more retaining on board at least 300 kilograms of cod;

or two tons of pelagic stocks.

(b) in relation to fishing vessels targeting herring and/or sprat, to masters of Union fishing vessels of eight metres overall length or more retaining on board at least two tonnes of pelagic stocks.

2. By way of derogation from Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the advance notification period laid down in that Article shall be of at least one hour before the estimated time of arrival at port.

2. By way of derogation from Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the prior notification period laid down in that Article shall be at least one hour before the estimated time of arrival at port. The competent authorities of the coastal Member States may, on a case-by-case basis, permit an earlier entry into port, provided that the necessary conditions for the appropriate control measures are to hand.

Amendment    44

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 12a

 

Completion and submission of the fishing logbook

 

By way of derogation from Article 14(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, masters of Union fishing vessels having caught pelagic or industrial species and keeping such catches on board fresh and unsorted may indicate in their fishing logbook all quantities of each species in those catches within a permitted margin of tolerance for each species of 10 % calculated in proportion to the total catch caught and kept on board fresh and unsorted.

Justification

This derogation from the logbook provisions in Regulation 1224/2009 is necessary in order to make it possible in practice to comply with the logbook provisions and avoid continuous sanctioning for provisions that cannot be respected. The situation is especially difficult in the Baltic Sea with two pelagic species occurring in mixed shoals.

Amendment    45

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) 5 tonnes of pelagic stocks.

(b) 2 tonnes of pelagic stocks.

Amendment    46

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 14

Article 14

Evaluation of the plan

Evaluation of the plan

The Commission shall ensure an evaluation of the impact of this plan on the stocks covered by this Regulation and on the fisheries exploiting those stocks, in particular to take account of changes in scientific advice, six years after the entry into force of the plan and, thereafter, every six years. The Commission shall submit the results of these evaluations to the European Parliament and Council.

Three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the impact of this multiannual plan on the stocks covered by this Regulation and on the fisheries exploiting those stocks, in particular as regards the progress achieved towards restoring and maintaining fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. The Commission shall submit the results of that evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council and may, where appropriate and taking into account the most recent scientific advice, propose adaptations to the multiannual plan or initiate modifications to the delegated acts.

Amendment    47

Proposal for a regulation

Chapter IX a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

CHAPTER IXa

 

SUPPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND

 

Article 14a

 

Support from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

 

For the purposes of point (c) of Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014, the multi-annual plan provided for by this Regulation shall be regarded as a multi-annual plan pursuant to Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Amendment    48

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 6, 8 and 9 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date of the entry into force of this Regulation.

2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 6, 8 and 9 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 1 September 2015. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.

Amendment    49

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 are deleted.

Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 is amended as follows:

 

1. Article 13(3) is deleted.

 

2. In Annex IV, in the column headed "Minimum size", the words "38 cm" in respect of the minimum conservation reference size for cod shall be replaced by "35 cm".

(1)

  Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19).


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Commission Proposal

Multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks has been published by the European Commission in October 2014. The aim of the proposal is to establish a framework for the multispecies management of the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea, where fishing primarily targets these three species. Cod, herring and sprat account for over 94 % of Baltic catches in the recent years. The Baltic Sea is a virtually closed body of water in which these three species are omnipresent and interact continuously. Therefore it is of utmost importance to deliver regulation making it possible to recognize interactions between the species covered, inter alia the cod's influence on herring and sprat stocks and the other way round.

A management plan for the Baltic Sea cod stocks has been in place since 2008(1) but it is widely assessed as not being commensurate with the current situation of the cod stocks and fisheries dependent on it. The stocks of herring and sprat are not yet covered by a management plan. Cod, herring and sprat are important components of the Baltic ecosystem. Cod predate on sprat and herring meaning that the size of the cod stock affects the size of the herring and sprat stocks and vice versa. The effects on flatfish due to particularly cod fisheries should also be covered by the plan.

In the view of the strong influence that biological interactions and environmental effects have on the Baltic stocks it is desirable to be able to adapt exploitation rates and patterns of these stocks in the light of improvements in scientific understanding of the interactions and of changes in environmental conditions. Such an approach would also be consistent with the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. The first step towards such adaptive management is the Commission Proposal to incorporate all relevant stocks into a single management plan. This includes target fishing mortalities expressed in ranges for each of the stocks. That will provide more flexible approach to resources during an annual setting up the fishing opportunities and improve reactions to changing stock situations.

The view of the Rapporteur

The general thrust of the Commission Proposal, that there is a need for a multispecies management plan in the Baltic Sea is right. The multispecies management approach is much more effective than a management of single species. The plan should provide for a balanced, sustainable exploitation of those stocks and the stability of fishing opportunities – and thereby of the livelihoods of fishers. At the same time it should guarantee that the management would be based on the most up-to-date scientific advice regarding the status of stocks covered, interactions between species and other aspects related to ecosystem and fisheries.

The Rapporteur also agrees with the position of the Commission that the Regulation has the include rules in relation to by-catches of flat fish. Flatfish such as plaice, flounder, turbot or brill can show up in significant amounts as by-catch during cod fishing and they don't expose cod, herring and sprat to any significant risk. In many points of the plan the Commission refers to flatfish while this is actually a plan for cod, herring and sprat. The Rapporteur wants to shift the importance from flatfish to by-catch to the main species covered; otherwise the proportionality of the whole proposal might be disturbed. By-catch of those species, as long as properly considered, should not endanger their correct exploitation. Should by-catch of flatfish be excessive, the Commission needs to react and regulate it by using an adequate set of technical measures.

The Rapporteur also agrees with the approach taken by the Commission that the further specification of the measures necessary to achieve MSY for the relevant stocks should be established on the basis of the regionalised approach of the CFP reform. However, the rules needs to be tied more properly to the regionalisation principle as set out in Article 18 of the Basic Regulation and allow for timely reaction to abrupt changes in the status of the stocks covered. The voice of the region in case of multiannual plans must be heard and put in practice, with an involvement of the European Parliament at an appropriate stage.

Furthermore, there are good arguments to keep certain existing rules, with a view to protecting the cod stocks during spawning time sand defending small-scale artisanal fisheries. Some amendments have been tabled to allow small scale fisheries to fish cod in coastal areas during summer months with no negative effect on pre-spawning and spawning concentrations, which take place on the Baltic Deeps, away from coastal areas. This may prove economically important for this fleet segment as prices during the relevant period are high.

Last but not least, it is important to keep in mind that the plan is a pioneer proposition in a very sensitive ecosystem of the Baltic Sea. Indeed, it may be seen as a “work in progress” given that the scientists are working on more advanced multispecies approaches, which may need to be reflected in the plan at a later stage. Therefore it is important that the first review is introduced relatively early, especially as a multi-species management plan is a new and developing concept. The first review of the plan should take place three years after its entry into force, and if the plan will have positive effects, to revise it again after 5 years. This will also provide a much needed flexibility to the plan.

(1)

  Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 779/97 (OJ L 248, 22.9.2007)


PROCEDURE

Title

Multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks

References

COM(2014)0614 – C8-0174/2014 – 2014/0285(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

3.10.2014

 

 

 

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

PECH

20.10.2014

 

 

 

Rapporteurs

       Date appointed

Jarosław Wałęsa

21.10.2014

 

 

 

Discussed in committee

3.12.2014

21.1.2015

24.2.2015

 

Date adopted

31.3.2015

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

20

1

2

Members present for the final vote

Marco Affronte, Clara Eugenia Aguilera García, Renata Briano, Richard Corbett, Linnéa Engström, Raymond Finch, Ian Hudghton, Carlos Iturgaiz, Werner Kuhn, Gabriel Mato, Norica Nicolai, Liadh Ní Riada, Ulrike Rodust, Remo Sernagiotto, Ricardo Serrão Santos, Isabelle Thomas, Ruža Tomašić, Peter van Dalen, Jarosław Wałęsa

Substitutes present for the final vote

Jens Gieseke, Sylvie Goddyn, Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, Anja Hazekamp, Verónica Lope Fontagné, Lidia Senra Rodríguez

Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote

Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Fredrick Federley, Sandra Kalniete

Date tabled

9.4.2015

Last updated: 13 June 2016Legal notice