REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean

    21.12.2011 - (COM(2011)0330 – C7‑0154/2011 – 2011/0144(COD)) - ***I

    Committee on Fisheries
    Rapporteur: Raül Romeva i Rueda


    Procedure : 2011/0144(COD)
    Document stages in plenary
    Document selected :  
    A7-0449/2011

    DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean

    (COM(2011)0330 – C7‑0154/2011 – 2011/0144(COD))

    (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

    The European Parliament,

    –   having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0330),

    –   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 (C7‑0154/2011),

    –   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 26 October 2011[1],

    –   having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    –   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0449/2011),

    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 – amending act

    Recital 1

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (1) The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has adopted a Recommendation 10-04 amending the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna. In order to rebuild the stock, the recommendation provides for a further reduction of the total allowable catch, for strengthening measures to reduce the fishing capacity and for reinforcing the control measures, in particular as regards the transfer and the caging operations.

    (1) The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has adopted a Recommendation 10-04 amending the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna. In order to rebuild the stock, the recommendation provides for a further reduction of the total allowable catch, for strengthening measures to reduce the fishing capacity and for reinforcing the control measures, in particular as regards the transfer and the caging operations, and

    foresees additional advice on the identification of spawning grounds and on the creation of sanctuaries to be developed by 2012.

    Justification

    The ICCAT recommendation highlights the need to properly identify spawning grounds as a matter of urgency. The protection of spawning grounds will be central to the ultimate success of the recovery plan and this should be borne in mind by all CPCs.

    Amendment  2

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Article 1 – point 10

    Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

    Article 24 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    If the investigation is not concluded within 10 working days or if the outcome of the investigation indicates that the number and /or average weight of bluefin tuna is in excess of 10 % of that declared by the farm operator, the flag CPC or Member State responsible for the catching vessel shall issue a release order for the quantities in excess.

    If the investigation is not concluded within 10 working days or if the outcome of the investigation indicates that the number and / or average weight of bluefin tuna is in excess of 10 % of that declared by the farm operator, the flag CPC or Member State responsible for the catching vessel shall issue a release order for the number and /or weight in excess.

    Justification

    The specific references to number and weight have been used throughout the same paragraph and should not be changed. This is also the wording used in the ICCAT recommendation. The word 'quantities' is less precise.

    • [1]  Not yet published in the Official Journal.

    EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

    In November 2010, in Paris, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) amended its multiannual recovery plan for the eastern stock of bluefin tuna. As the EU is a contracting party to ICCAT it is obliged to transpose those amendments into EU law. It is the Commission's proposal to that end that is the subject of the present report.

    The Context

    The history of management of the bluefin tuna fishery is long, complicated and, thus far at least, not crowned with success. Though the stock has been fished for millenia, the problems began in earnest in the 1990s when the practice of caging bluefin in order to fatten them up for the Japanese market was introduced. Japanese market demand was met through an uncontrolled – and heavily subsidized in the case of the EU – expansion in the size of the purse seine fleet targeting the Mediterranean stock.

    The complexity of the fishery and the need for constant vigilence on the part of ICCAT is demonstrated by the volume of regulation. During the past 20 years, 64 management measures have been adopted, of which 13 are still in effect. Two are of particular importance. The recovery plan was first adopted in 2006, when it was 14 pages long, including annexes. It was amended in 2008, 2009 and again in 2010, by which time it had swollen to 30 pages. There is also a catch documentation scheme, adopted in 2007 and amended in 2008 and 2009. This document rather shorter, at 18 pages. The EU legislation is no less voluminous.

    Consequently, the fishery for the eastern bluefin is the most tightly regulated fishery in the EU and probably among the most regulated in the world.

    However, the fact that ICCAT considers it necessary to adopt such detailed and stringent management measures and to strengthen them almost on an annual basis suggests that ICCAT is having difficulty in keeping up with the evolving fishery in terms of both monitoring and controlling its activities and limiting its impact on the stock. Most of the provisions in these regulations are responses to the complexity of the tuna caging and fattening operations, which create numerous loopholes in the legislation. The extent of illegal fishing, exceeding national quotas, misreporting and other problems (by the EU as well as other countries) was so prevalent in 2008 that an independent panel reviewing ICCAT's performance referred to management of the bluefin fishery in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean as "an international disgrace".

    The EU and its Member States spend large amounts of money in an attempt to ensure compliance with these rules. For 2010 for example, there were 27 inspection vessels and 11 airplanes and helicopters deployed by the Fisheries Control Agency and the Member States.

    While such massive investment in control has doubtless led to much better compliance, at least as far as the EU fishery is concerned, many concerns remain about the historical over-fishing (by the EU and others), the extent of current IUU catches and the degree of compliance by other Contracting Parties.

    The Current Situation

    The status of the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of bluefin tuna has been controversial for many years. The most recent detailed assessment was conducted by the ICCAT scientific committee (SCRS) in 2010 (the statistics were updated in 2011).

    The assessment makes the following points:

    · there has been a "substantial decrease in catch" during 2008 and 2009 (2010 data are incomplete since some countries have not reported catches);

    · there are indications of increasing numbers of juveniles in parts of the range;

    · recent biomass trends show increases in some scenarios but decreases in others;

    · fishing mortality appears to have continued to increase for younger fish while that for older fish has declined in recent years;

    · rebuilding could be accomplished by 2019 with zero catch and by 2022 with current catch.

    However, these generally positive points were heavily qualified:

    · indicators independent from the fishery are needed to provide a more reliable assessment;

    · despite improvements in data there remain "considerable data limitations for the 2010 assessment";

    · recent fishing mortality is too high, and biomass too low, to be consistent with ICCAT's objectives;

    · the analyses "are known to be impaired by various sources of uncertainties that have not yet been quantified" including stock status in 2009, level of IUU catches and bluefin productivity;

    · concerns remain about the "substantial excess capacity" that remains and could easily catch far more fish than the quotas.

    In short, the situation is much better than it was even a few years ago but that could change quite dramatically as future assessments attempt to deal with these current problems.

    It should also be noted that concerns have been raised about the validity of certain data on the fishery. One recent analysis[1] uses trade documents to estimate that over 32.000 tonnes of bluefin were traded in 2010, compared to a TAC in 2010 of 13.500 tonnes. Though the tuna traded would not necessarily only include tuna caught that same year, such a large discrepency merits an in-depth investigation as catches over the quota would affect the probability and time-frame of the recovery. Other concerns relate to the estimates used by the SCRS on the amount of capacity that should be removed[2].

    The ICCAT recovery plan will "continue through 2022, with the goal of achieving BMSY, with at least 60% probability." However, the EU's Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) obliges the EU to achieve "good environmental status" - which is taken to be BMSY - by 2020, two years earlier. The ICCAT recovery plan is thus less ambitious than EU legislation, and both of them are far less ambitious than the Johannesburg Declaration of almost a decade ago, which sought to achieve BMSY by 2015.

    The Commission's Proposal

    The ICCAT bluefin recovery plan has been frequently amended and strengthened. The amendments in the present report date from November 2010 and concern the following:

    · a reduction of the TAC from 13.500 to 12.900 tonnes (though the TAC is not included in this regulation);

    · tightening up of various aspects of control, especially relating to transfer of tuna from the net to the cages;

    · further details required in the annual fishing plans, the capacity management plans and the inspection plans of the Member States;

    · strengthening measures for the reduction of capacity;

    · extending the closed season for purse seines in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean;

    · prohibition of joint fishing operations with non-EU-flagged vessels;

    · various provisions to increase inspection and observer capacities;

    · corresponding changes to the Annexes.

    The EU has no choice but to adopt these amendments as they have been agreed by an international organisation and the EU has not tabled an objection. Therefore, your rapporteur fully endorses them, as far as they go.

    Are ICCAT Management Measures Sufficient?

    The bluefin tuna fishery is an unusual one in some ways. Many fisheries also use a large number of gears, operate over a wide geographical range and under many different flags (including developing and developed countries as well as flags of non-compliance). What makes the bluefin fishery unusual though is the extraordinary price that the fish obtain on the market and the degree of concentration of the market in one country, Japan. This led to the dominant role in the fishery played by the combined purse seining – tuna fattening operations, which explains many of the past problems.

    While the financial returns on fishing are so high that they actively encourage IUU fishing and other illegal activities, the high percentage of fish that goes to one country should, in theory, make the market less problematic to control. This accounts for the extensive management and control measures in the recovery plan, as well as the detailed catch documentation scheme for monitoring international trade.

    Attending ICCAT meetings, and examining the management measures that are adopted, though, gives the impression that ICCAT is always at least a step behind in terms of adapting to the current fishery. The industry has far deeper pockets for developing new, but not necessarily lower impact, fishing gears and practices, developing ways to avoid the control measures, and finding new ways to ship tuna outside the scope of the very complex MCS procedures in place. ICCAT members, in many cases, simply do not have the means (economic, administrative, technological) to control the fishery. In many cases, they also lack the political will. The result is the annual amendments to both the recovery plan and the catch documentation scheme.

    In addition, as noted above, the ICCAT recovery plan is less ambitious that EU domestic legislation.

    The above considerations lead your rapporteur to suggest that it is time for ICCAT to finally change its approach and to try to jump ahead, instead of always scrambling to catch up. The European Commission has frequently tried to push ICCAT to move further and faster but with very limited success. It is time for the EU to take firm, precautionary action as required by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, rather than being continually held back by ICCAT.

    Two measures could be taken by the EU immediately.

    The 2008 revision of the bluefin recovery plan requested the SCRS to identify the major spawning zones of bluefin in the Mediterranean, with a view to creating sanctuaries. In 2010 the SCRS identified the following six zones:

     

    Parts of these six zones lie within EU jurisdiction and parts are in international waters. There is nothing to prevent the EU from declaring these zones to be closed areas, or sanctuaries, for bluefin tuna and closing them to fishing during the spawning season. Such a step would also be coherent with EU environmental legislation (MSFD, Natura 2000, etc.) In one bold move, the EU could make a major contribution to bluefin tuna conservation and dramatically increase the probability of the recovery of the stock. A unilateral EU declaration of spawning closures would apply to EU-flagged vessels throughout all six zones and vessels flying third country flags only to waters under EU jurisdiction (in areas 1, 2 and 3). The fact that the EU has 56% of the TAC for bluefin means that the temptation to leave the EU register in order to fish in those waters would be minimal.

    The recovery plan imposes a minimum size of 30 kg for bluefin tuna. However, there are three derogations from this size. Bluefin as small as 8 kg can be landed by baitboats and trollers in the Atlantic, by coastal artisanal fisheries in the Mediterranean and for farming purposes in the Adriatic Sea. This latter fishery is conducted by industrial purse seiners and is difficult to justify. The EU could remove that derogation for its own vessels.

    Amendments to implement these measures have been tabled. These two management actions would significantly improve the prospects for recovery of bluefin in the Mediterranean. They would, together, result in a higher probability of success of the recovery plan and possibly the achievement of its objective at an earlier date than 2022, which would then be consistent with EU domestic legislation. For this reason a third amendment has been tabled to the objectives of the plan.

    The rapporteur regrets that his amendments have not been taken into consideration by the committee.

    OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (06.10.2011)

    for the Committee on Fisheries

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean
    (COM(2011)0330 – C7‑0154/2011 – 2011/0144(COD))

    Rapporteur: Daciana Octavia Sârbu

    SHORT JUSTIFICATION

    Stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna have been drastically reduced over the years and urgent action is required to protect them. In this context, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), to which the EU is a contracting party (CPC), agreed a new recommendation at its annual meeting in 2010. Recommendation 10-04 seeks to increase the measures to protect bluefin tuna by amending the previously agreed multiannual recovery plan. The changes include a reduction of the Total Allowable Catch and a strengthening of the control measures used to implement the recovery plan, specifically those control measures relating to caging and transfer operations. The purpose of the Commission's proposal is to transpose this new ICCAT recommendation into EU law.

    Given that the ICCAT recommendation has already been adopted at international level, there is limited scope for amending the text of the transposition. However, there are some modifications which could be made in order to improve the proposal.

    1. Consistency with other legal obligations

    In addition to the ICCAT recommendation, the EU is also bound by other legal obligations regarding fish stocks and the marine environment. The most significant of these is perhaps the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which obliges Member States to achieve 'good environmental status' by 2020 at the latest. Commission Decision 2010/477, which sets out criteria and methodological standards concerning good environmental status of marine waters, states that populations of all commercially exploited fish should be "within safe biological limits".

    Given that under Article 7 TFEU the EU must ensure consistency between its legislation and policies, it is necessary to reflect the obligations contained in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna.

    2. Caging Operations

    'Caging operations' refers to the transfer of bluefin tuna to fattening and farming cages. A section of the ICCAT text, which refers to determining the responsible CPC in cases where a farm is located outside the jurisdiction of a CPC, has been omitted from the text of the transposition. This should be inserted in order to clarify the responsible CPC in this specific context.

    3. Spawning grounds

    The ICCAT text highlights the importance of the identification and protection of spawning grounds. The Environment Committee should reiterate the significance of this, as it is likely to be an essential element of any successful recovery plan.

    AMENDMENTS

    The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Fisheries, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

    Amendment  1

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Recital 1

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (1) The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has adopted a Recommendation 10-04 amending the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna. In order to rebuild the stock, the recommendation provides for a further reduction of the total allowable catch, for strengthening measures to reduce the fishing capacity and for reinforcing the control measures, in particular as regards the transfer and the caging operations.

    (1) The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has adopted a Recommendation 10-04 amending the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna. In order to rebuild the stock, the recommendation provides for a further reduction of the total allowable catch, for strengthening measures to reduce the fishing capacity and for reinforcing the control measures, in particular as regards the transfer and the caging operations, and

    foresees additional advice on the identification of spawning grounds and creation of sanctuaries to be developed by 2012.

    Justification

    The ICCAT recommendation highlights the need to properly identify spawning grounds as a matter of urgency. The protection of spawning grounds will be central to the ultimate success of the recovery plan and this should be borne in mind by all CPCs.

    Amendment  2

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Recital 3 a (new)

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (3a) Although Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 aims to ensure the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, the situation with regard to the sustainability of the bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean is a matter of considerable concern, due to the high fishing mortality rate and the low spawning stock biomass.

    Amendment  3

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Recital 3a (new)

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (3a) Union policy and legislation in relation to bluefin tuna should be consistent with the objective of ensuring an exploitation of living marine biological resources that restores and maintains healthy populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield by 2015, where possible, as was - adopted at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development;

    Amendment  4

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Recital 3 a (new)

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (3a) Union policy and legislation in relation to bluefin tuna should be consistent with 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)1 and Commission Decision 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters2, which require Member States to take action to ensure that, by 2020, at the latest, the spawning stock biomass of all populations of commercially exploited fish, including bluefin tuna, is at or above the spawning stock biomass associated with maximum sustainable yield.

     

    __________

     

    1 OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19.

     

    2 OJ L 232, 2.9.2010, p. 14.

    Justification

    In addition to the ICCAT recommendation, the EU is also bound by the Marine Framework Strategy Directive, which obliges the Member States to 'achieve good environmental status' by 2020. Good environmental status means ensuring that commercially exploited fish stocks are within safe biological limits. To ensure consistency between policies and legislation, which the EU is required to do by Art 7 TFEU, it is necessary to reflect the relevant obligations of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the recovery plan for bluefin tuna.

    Amendment  5

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Recital 3 a (new)

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (3a) Multi-annual recovery plans drawn up under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, such as the recovery plan for bluefin tuna, must apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management set out in that Regulation and the precautionary principle laid down in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and be in accordance with the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, thereby resulting in the need for more caution to be exercised on the part of the Union when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and making it imperative that the absence of adequate scientific information is not used as a reason for postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve bluefin tuna and their environment.

    Amendment  6

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Article 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

    Article 1 – paragraph 3

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    The objective of that recovery plan shall be to achieve a biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield with greater than 60 % probability.

    The objective of that recovery plan shall be to achieve, by 2015, a biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield with greater than 75 % probability.

    Amendment  7

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Article 1 – point 5 – point a

    Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

    Article 7 – paragraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    2. Purse seine fishing for bluefin tuna shall be prohibited in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean during the period from 15 June to 15 May.

    2. Purse seine fishing for bluefin tuna shall be prohibited in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.

    Justification

    Five out of the eight tuna species are at risk of extinction due to over-fishing. The latest assessment for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) concludes that the only way to save southern and Atlantic bluefin tuna was to shut down the fisheries until stocks were rebuilt. (If adopted, articles 30 and 31 are adapted to be consistent).

    Amendment  8

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Article 1 – point 5a (new)

    Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

    Article 7a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (5a) The following article shall be inserted:

     

    "Article 7a

     

    Spawning grounds

     

    The Commission, based on the available scientific research provided by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics concerning the six dominant spawning areas in the Mediterranean, shall identify the spawning grounds within the Union and shall create sanctuaries pursuant to the precautionary principle."

    Amendment  9

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Article 1 – point 10

    Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

    Article 24 – paragraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    1. The Member State responsible for the farm shall submit within one week of the

    completion of the caging operation a caging report, validated by an observer, to the Member State or CPC whose flag vessels have fished the tuna and to the

    Commission. The Commission shall promptly forward that information to the

    ICCAT Secretariat. This report shall contain the information included in the caging declaration as set out in the ICCAT Recommendation [06-07] on bluefin tuna farming.

    1. The Member State responsible for the farm shall submit within one week of the

    completion of the caging operation a caging report, validated by an observer, to the Member State or CPC whose flag vessels have fished the tuna and to the

    Commission. The Commission shall promptly forward that information to the

    ICCAT Secretariat. This report shall contain the information included in the caging declaration as set out in the ICCAT Recommendation [06-07] on bluefin tuna farming. When the farming facilities authorised to operate for farming of bluefin tuna caught in the Convention area ("FFBs") are located beyond waters that are under the jurisdiction of CPCs, this paragraph shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the CPCs where the natural or legal persons responsible for FFBs are located.

    Justification

    The reference to farms located outside a CPC's jurisdiction is included in the ICCAT recommendation but has been excluded from the Commission's proposal. It should be included in order to clarify which CPC is responsible.

    Amendment  10

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Article 1 – point 10

    Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

    Article 24 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    If the investigation is not concluded within 10 working days or if the outcome of the investigation indicates that the number and /or average weight of bluefin tuna is in excess of 10 % of that declared by the farm operator, the flag CPC or Member State responsible for the catching vessel shall issue a release order for the quantities in excess.

    If the investigation is not concluded within 10 working days or if the outcome of the investigation indicates that the number and / or average weight of bluefin tuna is in excess of 10 % of that declared by the farm operator, the flag CPC or Member State responsible for the catching vessel shall issue a release order for the number and /or weight in excess.

    Justification

    The specific references to number and weight have been used throughout the same paragraph and should not be changed. This is also the wording used in the ICCAT recommendation. The word 'quantities' is less precise.

    Amendment                11

    Proposal for a regulation – amending act

    Article 1 – point 16a (new)

    Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

    Article 33

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (16a) Article 33 is replaced by the following :

     

    "Article 33

     

    Enforcement

     

    1. Member States shall take enforcement measures with respect to a fishing vessel flying their flag, where it has been established, in accordance with their law that the vessel does not comply with Articles 4, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 of this Regulation. The measures shall include, depending on the gravity of the offence and in accordance with their national law:

     

    (a) fines reflecting the value of the catches and the conservation status of the species;

     

    (b) seizure of illegal fishing gear and catches;

     

    (c) sequestration of the vessel;

     

    (d) suspension or withdrawal of authorisation to fish;

     

    (e) reduction or withdrawal of the fishing quota, if applicable.

     

    Fines shall represent at least five times the value of the catches obtained through infringement. In the case of a repeated serious infringement within a five-year period, the financial penalties shall be increased to an amount that is at least eight times the value of the catches obtained through infringement.

     

    2. Each Member State within the jurisdiction of which the bluefin tuna farm is located shall take enforcement measures with respect to that farm, where it has been established, in accordance with its law, that the farm does not comply with Articles 24 and 31(2) of this Regulation and Article 4a, 4b and 4c of Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001. The measures shall include, depending on the gravity of the offence and in accordance with the national law:

     

    (a) fines reflecting the value of the fish and the conservation status of the species;

     

    (b) suspension or withdrawal from the fattening farms record;

     

    (c) prohibition of caging or marketing quantities of bluefin tuna."

    Justification

    Amending article 33 in order to change ‘may’ into ‘shall’ in the second sentence of paragraph 1 and 2; to include reference to value and conservation status of species to fines; and to insert minimum level for fines (equal to financial penalties adopted by EP in the first reading on Timber Regulation).

    Amendment  12

    Proposal for a regulation-amending act

    Article 1 – point 18a (new)

    Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

    Article 34 – paragraph 3a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (18a) In Article 34, the following paragraph is added:

     

    "3a. Member States shall lay down rules on the penalties applicable to trade in tuna that infringes the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and shall include, inter alia, immediate suspension of the authorisation to trade.’

    Justification

    It is necessary to ensure that traders are also subject to enforcement action.

    PROCEDURE

    Title

    Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean

    References

    COM(2011)0330 – C7-0154/2011 – 2011/0144(COD)

    Committee responsible

           Date announced in plenary

    PECH

    9.6.2011

     

     

     

    Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

           Date announced in plenary

    ENVI

    9.6.2011

     

     

     

    Rapporteur(s)

           Date appointed

    Daciana Octavia Sârbu

    15.6.2011

     

     

     

    Discussed in committee

    12.9.2011

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    4.10.2011

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    54

    0

    0

    Members present for the final vote

    János Áder, Kriton Arsenis, Sophie Auconie, Paolo Bartolozzi, Sandrine Bélier, Sergio Berlato, Milan Cabrnoch, Nessa Childers, Chris Davies, Bairbre de Brún, Esther de Lange, Anne Delvaux, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Dan Jørgensen, Karin Kadenbach, Christa Klaß, Holger Krahmer, Jo Leinen, Corinne Lepage, Peter Liese, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Miroslav Ouzký, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Gilles Pargneaux, Antonyia Parvanova, Mario Pirillo, Pavel Poc, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Anna Rosbach, Oreste Rossi, Carl Schlyter, Theodoros Skylakakis, Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu, Salvatore Tatarella, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund, Sabine Wils

    Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

    Matthias Groote, Arlene McCarthy, Judith A. Merkies, Thomas Ulmer, Vladimir Urutchev, Kathleen Van Brempt, Anna Záborská, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska

    PROCEDURE

    Title

    Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean

    References

    COM(2011)0330 – C7-0154/2011 – 2011/0144(COD)

    Date submitted to Parliament

    8.6.2011

     

     

     

    Committee responsible

           Date announced in plenary

    PECH

    9.6.2011

     

     

     

    Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

           Date announced in plenary

    ENVI

    9.6.2011

     

     

     

    Rapporteur(s)

           Date appointed

    Raül Romeva i Rueda

    15.6.2011

     

     

     

    Discussed in committee

    13.7.2011

    23.11.2011

     

     

    Date adopted

    20.12.2011

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    19

    0

    0

    Members present for the final vote

    Antonello Antinoro, Kriton Arsenis, Alain Cadec, João Ferreira, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo, Carl Haglund, Werner Kuhn, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Guido Milana, Crescenzio Rivellini, Ulrike Rodust, Struan Stevenson, Catherine Trautmann

    Substitute(s) present for the final vote

    Jean-Paul Besset, Chris Davies, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Antolín Sánchez Presedo

    Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

    Giovanni La Via

    Date tabled

    21.12.2011