Procedure : 2003/0327(CNS)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0050/2005

Texts tabled :

A6-0050/2005

Debates :

PV 14/04/2005 - 5

Votes :

PV 14/04/2005 - 10.1

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2005)0128

REPORT     *
PDF 201kWORD 76k
16 March 2005
PE 350.158v02-00 A6-0050/2005

on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the sole stocks in the Western Channel and the Bay of Biscay

(COM(2003)0819 – C5-0047/2004 – 2003/0327(CNS))

Committee on Fisheries

Rapporteur: Philippe Morillon

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the sole stocks in the Western Channel and the Bay of Biscay

(COM(2003)0819 – C5-0047/2004 – 2003/0327(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2003)0819)(1),

–   having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C5-0047/2004),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0050/2005),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission  Amendments by Parliament

Amendment 1

Title

Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the sole stocks in the Western Channel and the Bay of Biscay

Council regulation establishing a management plan for sole stocks in the Western Channel and the Bay of Biscay

 

(This amendment entails changes to the recitals on the state of stocks and to references to the recovery plan throughout the text.)

Justification

The most recent scientific reports indicate that sole stocks are not below the biological safety threshold. Consequently, instead of adopting the recovery plan referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, it is preferable to adopt the management plan referred to in Article 6. This makes it unnecessary to adopt measures to manage fishing effort for this species.

Amendment 2

Recital 1

(1) Recent scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has indicated that the sole stocks in ICES Divisions VIIe and VIIIa,b have been subjected to levels of mortality by fishing which have eroded the quantities of mature fish in the sea to the point at which the stocks may not be able to replenish themselves by reproduction and that the stocks are therefore threatened with collapse.

deleted

Justification

The most recent scientific reports indicate that the sole stocks are not below the biological safety threshold. The ICES advice on which the Commission proposal is based is already out of date.

Amendment 3

Recital 2

(2) Measures need to be taken to establish multi-annual plans for the recovery of these stocks in conformity with Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.

(2) Management measures should be taken for these stocks in conformity with Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.

Justification

Consistent with Amendment 1.

Amendment 4

Recital 3

(3) The objectives of the plans should be to rebuild these stocks to safe biological limits within five to ten years.

(3) The objectives of the plans should be to ensure that these stocks remain within safe biological limits.

Justification

These stocks, as indicated in the most recent scientific reports, are not below the biological safety thresholds and therefore the objective of the management plans is to ensure that the safety of these levels is maintained.

Amendment 5

Recital 3 a (new)

(3a) The objective of the new common fisheries policy is to provide for the sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources, taking account of the environmental, social and economic aspects in a balanced manner.

Justification

Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 makes explicit reference to this crucial aspect of compatibility and coherence between the two strands of the new common fisheries policy: biological and environmental on the one hand, and socio-economic on the other. The rule of proportionality must be applied to any new resource management measure, taking the greatest possible account of this imperative and avoiding any imbalance between the two strands, biological and socio-economic. Parliament had already called for 'the interdisciplinary nature of the sciences (including Economics and Social Sciences)' to be placed 'at the heart of the process of formulating scientific opinions' (see paragraph 5 of the report on integrating environmental protection requirements into the common fisheries policy adopted in plenary on 22 October 2002 - A5-0360/2002).

Amendment 6

Recital 3 b (new)

 

(3a) In implementing the plan, the Commission and the Member States should ensure the full participation of the Regional Advisory Councils and other stakeholders.

Justification

Increasing the involvement of fishermen and other stakeholders in the Common Fisheries Policy is a crucial part of the objectives of CFP reform. This should be explicitly mentioned in this Council Regulation.

Amendment 7

Recital 5

(5) The absolute sizes of the stocks concerned as estimated by STECF and ICES are too uncertain to be used as targets for the recovery and the targets should be expressed in terms of fishing mortality rates.

deleted

Justification

The management plan for sole should be based on the latest scientific assessment of the biomass.

Amendment 8

Recital 6

(6) In order to achieve that objective, the levels of fishing mortality rates need to be controlled so that it is highly likely that those rates are reduced from year to year.

deleted

Justification

The management plan for sole should be based on the latest scientific assessment of the biomass.

Amendment 9

Recital 8

(8) Once recovery has been achieved the Council should decide on a proposal from the Commission on follow-up measures in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.

deleted

Amendment 10

Article 2

The recovery plan shall aim to rebuild the sole stocks concerned to within safe biological limits.

The management plan shall aim to maintain the sole stocks concerned within safe biological limits.

Justification

Consistent with Amendment 1.

Amendment 11

Article 3, title and paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall, on the basis of advice from ICES and the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), evaluate the impact of the recovery measures on the sole stocks concerned and the fisheries on those stocks, in the second year of application of this Regulation and in each of the following years.

1. The Commission shall, on the basis of advice from ICES and the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), evaluate the impact of the management measures on the sole stocks concerned and the fisheries on those stocks, in the second year of application of this Regulation and in each of the following years.

Justification

Consistent with Amendment 1.

Amendment 12

Article 3, paragraph 2

2. Where the Commission finds, on the basis of the annual evaluation, that any of the sole stocks concerned has reached the objective set out in Article 2, the Council shall decide by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission to replace, for that stock, the recovery plan provided for in this Regulation by a management plan in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.

deleted

Justification

Consistent with Amendment 1.

Amendment 13

Article 3, paragraph 3

3. Where the Commission finds, on the basis of the annual evaluation, that any of the sole stocks concerned do not show proper sign of recovery, the Council shall decide by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission on additional and/or alternative measures to ensure recovery of the stock concerned.

3. Where the Commission finds, on the basis of the annual evaluation, that any of the sole stocks concerned are at risk of collapse, the Council shall decide by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission on additional and/or alternative measures to ensure recovery of the stock concerned.

Justification

Consistent with Amendment 1.

Amendment 14

Article 5, paragraph 1

1. Where the fishing mortality rate for one of the sole stocks concerned has been estimated by the STECF in the light of the most recent report of ICES to be above 0.14 per year, the TAC for that stock shall not exceed a level of catches which, according to a scientific evaluation carried out by the STECF in the light of the most recent report of ICES, will result in a reduction of:

1. The TAC shall not exceed a level of catches for which a scientific evaluation by the STECF, carried out in the light of the most recent report of ICES, has shown that it will result in a 15% increase in the quantities of adult fish in the sea, at the end of its year of application, by comparison with the quantities estimated to be present in the sea at the start of the year in question.

(a) 20% in the fishing mortality rate in its year of application, compared to the fishing mortality rate estimated for the preceding year with regard to the sole stock in Division VIIe;

 

(b) 35% in the fishing mortality rate in its year of application, compared to the fishing mortality rate estimated for the preceding year with regard to the sole stock in Divisions VIIIa and b.

 

Justification

This rule for setting TACs will ensure that the precautionary biomass is restored on the basis of a gradual reduction in fishing mortality.

Amendment 15

Article 5, paragraph 2

2. Where the fishing mortality rate for one of the sole stocks concerned has been estimated by the STECF, in the light of the most recent report of ICES, to be equal to or below 0.14 per year, the TAC for that stock shall be set at a level of catches which, according to a scientific evaluation carried out by the STECF in the light of the most recent report of ICES will result in a fishing mortality rate of:

2.The Council shall not adopt a TAC which the STEFC, in the light of the most recent report of ICES, expects would result, in the year of its application, in a fishing mortality rate in excess of the following values:

(a) 0.11 per year in the year of its application with regard to the sole stock in Division VIIe;

Bay of Biscay sole: 0.36;

(b) 0.09 per year in the year of its application with regard to the sole stock in Divisions VIIIa and b.

Western Channel sole: rate to be defined in view of subsequent ICES advice, following the inclusion of data series from certain countries which are currently not taken into account.

Justification

This rule for setting TACs will ensure that the precautionary biomass is restored on the basis of a gradual reduction in fishing mortality.

Amendment 16

Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2

1. In the first year of application of this Regulation, the following rules shall apply:

deleted

(a) where application of Article 5 would result in a TAC which exceeds the TAC of the preceding year by more than 25%, the Council shall adopt a TAC which shall not be more than 25% greater than the TAC of that year;

 

where application of Article 5 would result in a TAC which is more than 25% less than the TAC of the preceding year, the Council shall adopt a TAC which is not more than 25% less than the TAC of that year.

 

2. Starting with the second year of application of this Regulation, the following rules shall apply:

1. Starting with the first year of application of this Regulation, the following rules shall apply:

(a) where application of Article 5 would result in a TAC which exceeds the TAC of the preceding year by more than 15%, the Council shall adopt a TAC which shall not be more than 15% greater than the TAC of that year;

(a) where application of Article 5 would result in a TAC which exceeds the TAC of the preceding year by more than 15%, the Council shall adopt a TAC which shall not be more than 15% greater than the TAC of that year;

(b) where application of Article 5 would result in a TAC which is more than 15% less than the TAC of the preceding year, the Council shall adopt a TAC which is not more than 15% less than the TAC of that year.

(b) where application of Article 5 would result in a TAC which is more than 15% less than the TAC of the preceding year, the Council shall adopt a TAC which is not more than 15% less than the TAC of that year.

Justification

It is preferable to lay down maximum TAC variations of 15% from the start in order to avoid drastic changes in fleet management.

Amendment 17

Chapter III

This chapter is deleted.

Justification

The measures laid down in the Commission proposal as amended are sufficient for the sustainable management of the resource.

Amendment 18

Article 16

By way of derogation from Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 of 22 September 1983 laying down detailed rules for recording information on Member States’ catches of fish, the permitted margin of tolerance, in estimation of quantities, in kilograms retained on board of vessels shall be 5% of the logbook figure.

By way of derogation from Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 of 22 September 1983 laying down detailed rules for recording information on Member States’ catches of fish, the permitted margin of tolerance, the permitted margin of tolerance, in estimation of quantities, in kilograms retained on board of vessels, shall be 8% of the logbook figure. In the event that no conversion factor is laid down in Community legislation, the conversion factor adopted by the Member State whose flag the vessel is flying shall apply.

Justification

It seems logical to apply the same margin of tolerance as applies under the hake recovery plan, as laid down in the recently adopted Regulation No 811/2004 (Article 10).

Amendment 19

Article 17

The competent authorities of a Member State shall ensure that any quantity of common sole exceeding 50 Kg caught in any of the areas referred to in Article 1 shall be weighed using auction room scales before sale.

The competent authorities of a Member State shall ensure that any quantity of common sole exceeding 100 Kg caught in any of the areas referred to in Article 1 shall be weighed using auction room scales before sale.

Amendment 20

Article 19, paragraph 1

1. The competent authorities of a Member State may require that any quantity of common sole exceeding 50 Kg caught in any of the geographical areas referred to in Article 1 and first landed in that Member State is weighed before being transported elsewhere from the port of first landing.

1. The competent authorities of a Member State may require that any quantity of common sole exceeding 100 Kg caught in any of the geographical areas referred to in Article 1 and first landed in that Member State is weighed before being transported elsewhere from the port of first landing.

Amendment 21

Article 19, paragraph 2

2. By way of derogation from Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, quantities bigger than 50 Kg of common sole which are transported to a place other than that of landing or import shall be accompanied by a copy of one of the declarations provided for in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 pertaining to the quantities of the sole transported. The exemption provided for in Article 13(4)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 shall not apply.

2. By way of derogation from Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, quantities bigger than 100 Kg of common sole which are transported to a place other than that of landing or import shall be accompanied by a copy of one of the declarations provided for in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 pertaining to the quantities of the sole transported. The exemption provided for in Article 13(4)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 shall not apply.

Amendment 22

Annex

This annex is deleted.

(1)

Not yet published in OJ.


PROCEDURE

Title

Proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the sole stocks in the Western Channel and the Bay of Biscay

References

COM(2003)0819 – C5-0047/2004 – 2003/0327(CNS)

Legal basis

Article 37 EC

Basis in Rules of Procedure

Rule 51

Date of consulting Parliament

28.1.2004

Committee responsible
  Date announced in plenary

PECH
16.9.2004

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)
  Date announced in plenary

ENVI
16.9.2004

 

 

 

 

Not delivering opinion(s)
  Date of decision

ENVI
1.9.2004

 

 

 

 

Enhanced cooperation
  Date announced in plenary

 

 

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)
  Date appointed

Philippe Morillon
28.7.2004

 

Previous rapporteur(s)

 

 

Simplified procedure
  Date of decision

 

Legal basis disputed
  Date of JURI opinion

 

 

 

Financial endowment amended
  Date of BUDG opinion

 

 

 

European Economic and Social Committee consulted
  Date of decision in plenary


Committee of the Regions consulted
  Date of decision in plenary


Discussed in committee

31.8.2004

5.10.2004

25.11.2004

24.1.2005

 

Date adopted

15.3.2005

Result of final vote

for:

against:

abstentions:

17

1

0

Members present for the final vote

Elspeth Attwooll, Marie-Hélène Aubert, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Ioannis Gklavakis, Alfred Gomolka, Heinz Kindermann, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Albert Jan Maat, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Bernard Poignant, Dirk Sterckx, Struan Stevenson, Catherine Stihler, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna

Substitutes present for the final vote

María Isabel Salinas García

Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

 

Date tabled – A6

16.3.2005

A6-0050/2005

Comments

 

Last updated: 10 August 2006Legal notice