C_2017185EN.01008201.xml

9.6.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/82

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Conservation of Fishery Resources and the Protection of Marine Ecosystems through Technical Measures

(2017/C 185/11)

Rapporteur:

Emily WESTLEY, Member of Hastings Council (UK/PES)

Reference document:

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1343/2011 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005

COM(2016) 134 final

I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Preamble

Prohibition of certain destructive fishing gears or methods

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(11)

Certain destructive fishing gears or methods which use explosives, poisons, stupefying substances, electric current, pneumatic hammers or other percussive instruments; towed devices and grabs for harvesting red coral or other type of corals and coral-like species and certain spear-guns should be prohibited except in the specific case of the electric pulse trawl which may be used under certain strict conditions. These conditions should include a system for monitoring, control and evaluation, serving for enforcement and research as well as evaluation purposes. Current licences for pulse trawling should be made subject to scientific (re-)assessment before being renewed or otherwise given a ‘non-prohibited’ status.

Reason

The electric pulses can have a deadly impact on marine life including juvenile fish and non-target species; MSC refuse to certify it because of the ‘impact of electricity from the gear on a range of environmental elements including ETP [endangered, threatened and protected] species (including elasmobranchs) and benthic organisms which may also have implications for the wider ecology of the area fished’; and ICES (February 2016) advises that ‘the existing regulatory framework is not sufficient to prevent the introduction of potentially damaging systems.’

Amendment 2

Article 4

Targets

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1. Technical measures shall aim to achieve the following targets:

(a)	ensure that catches of marine species below minimum conservation reference sizes do not exceed 5 % by volume in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

1. Technical measures shall aim to achieve the following targets:

(a)

that catches of marine species below minimum conservation reference sizes do not exceed limits defined in acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with Article 19(5) of this Regulation and unwanted catches are reduced as far as possible in accordance with 2(5)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Reason

Ensuring that catches of marine species below minimum conservation reference sizes are less than 5 % is unrealistic for the trawler fleet. What is more, the legislation already acts as a deterrent to fishing juveniles.

Amendment 3

Article 6

Definitions of terms

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(4)	‘directed fishing’ means fishing for a defined species or combination of species where the total catch of that/those species makes up more than 50 % of the economic value of the catch;

(4)	‘directed fishing’ means fishing for a defined species or combination of species where the total catch of that/those species for a given trip makes up more than 50 % of the catch;

Amendment 4

Article 6

Definitions of terms

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(26)	‘longline’ means a fishing gear consisting of a main line, sometimes of considerable length, to which snoods with baited or unbaited hooks are fixed at regular intervals. The main line is anchored either horizontally on or near the bottom, vertically or can be allowed to drift on the surface;

(26)

‘longline’ means fishing gear consisting of a main line, of variable length, to which snoods with baited or unbaited hooks are fixed at regular intervals. The main line is anchored either horizontally on or near the bottom, vertically or can be allowed to drift in the water column at varying depths or on the surface;

Amendment 5

Article 6

Definitions of terms

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(30)

‘codend’ means the rearmost part of the trawl, having either a cylindrical shape, i.e. the same circumference throughout, or a tapering shape. Made up of one or more panels (pieces of netting) of the same mesh size attached to one another along their sides in the axis of the trawl by a seam where a side rope may be attached. For regulatory purposes this shall be taken as the last 50 meshes of the net;

(30)

Reason

[Does not apply to the English version: the Spanish amendment adds the word ‘size’ after ‘mesh’ that does not appear in the Spanish version of the article.]

Amendment 6

Article 6

Definitions of terms

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(38)	‘immersion time’ means the period from the point of time when the nets are first put in the water until the point of time when the nets are fully recovered on board the fishing vessel;

(38)	‘immersion time’ means the period from the point of time when each of the nets is first put in the water until the point of time when each of these nets is recovered on board the fishing vessel;

Reason

Applicable to gill nets, entangling nets or trammel nets, made of up several troll lines (devices that are attached consecutively), in order to make clear that the immersion time commences as soon as the first troll line is put in the water and ends when the last troll line is recovered.

Amendment 7

Article 6

Definitions of terms

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(42)	‘high grading’ means the practice of discarding low priced fish that are subject to catch limits, even though they could have been legally landed, so as to maximise the total economic or monetary value of the fish brought back to harbour.

(42)

‘high grading’ means the practice of discarding low priced fish that are subject to catch limits, even though they could have been legally landed, so as to maximise the total economic or monetary value of the fish brought back to harbour , except for species that are not fit for human consumption due to being ground by crushing and compacting in the net .

Reason

The particular nature of using trawl nets means that on occasions catches are crushed and compacted, and are not fit for commercial sale.

Amendment 8

Article 9

General restrictions on the use of towed gears

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1. No part of any towed gear shall be constructed of a mesh size smaller than the codend mesh size. This provision shall not apply to netting devices used for the attachment of gear monitoring sensors. A further derogation may be granted by a delegated act adopted under Article 18 of the present regulation where use of a mesh size that is smaller than the codend mesh size in other parts of the towed gear results in benefits in terms of conservation of marine biological resources that are at least equivalent to the benefits with current fishing methods.

Reason

The anterior part of the device may be constructed with meshes of larger size, provided that this does not affect the fish effectively reaching the codend and that the construction cost is reduced.

Amendment 9

Article 13

Protection for sensitive habitats including vulnerable marine ecosystems

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2. Where the best available scientific advice recommends an amendment of the list of areas in Annex II, including the addition of new areas, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt such amendments by means of delegated acts, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 11(2) and 11(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. When adopting such amendments, the Commission shall give particular attention to the mitigation of negative effects of the displacement of fishing activity to other sensitive areas.

Reason

Consistency with the new legislation on deep-sea fisheries (Regulation establishing specific conditions to fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the North-East Atlantic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002).

Amendment 10

Article 19

Regional measures under multiannual plans

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
1. The Commission shall be empowered to establish technical measures at regional level with the aim of achieving objectives of multiannual plans referred to in Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Such measures shall be established by means of delegated acts adopted in accordance with Article 32 of this Regulation and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.	1. The Commission shall be empowered to establish technical measures at regional level with the aim of achieving objectives of multiannual plans referred to in Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Such measures shall be established by means of delegated acts adopted in accordance with Article 32 of this Regulation and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Member States may submit joint recommendations regardless of the establishment of multiannual plans for the respective areas.
2 …	2 …
3 …	3 …
4 …	4 …
5 …	5 …
6 .	6 …

Reason

In its current wording art. 19 of the draft regulation could be interpreted as imposing the establishment of multiannual plans as a condition for the submission of joint recommendations.

Amendment 11

Article 19

Regional measures under multiannual plans

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
1 …	1 …
2 …	2 …
3 …	3 …
4 …	4 …
5 …	5 …
6. The Commission may require the STECF to assess the joint recommendations referred to in paragraph 5.	6. The Commission shall require the STECF to assess the joint recommendations referred to in paragraph 5.

Reason

A wish for a much closer involvement of STEFC is considered vital by stakeholders, and requests in this directions have been made at policy hearings and debates at the EP and CoR.

Amendment 12

Article 31

Safeguard Measures

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1. Where available scientific advice indicates that immediate action is required to protect marine species, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 32 to alleviate such threats. Those acts may concern, in particular, restrictions on the use of fishing gears or on fishing activities in certain areas or during certain periods.

1. Where available scientific advice indicates that immediate action is required to protect marine species, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 32 to alleviate such threats , subject to prior evaluation of the social and economic impact of the proposed measures . Those acts may concern, in particular, restrictions on the use of fishing gears or on fishing activities in certain areas or during certain periods.

2. Delegated acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be designed in particular to:

(a)	address unexpected changes in stock patterns as a result of high or low levels of recruitment of juveniles into a stock;

(a)	address unexpected changes in stock patterns as a result of high or low levels of recruitment of juveniles into a stock;

(b)	provide protection for spawning fish or shellfish when stocks are at very low levels or where other environmental factors threaten the status of a stock.

(b)	provide protection for spawning fish or shellfish when stocks are at very low levels or where other environmental factors threaten the status of a stock.

3. Delegated acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply for a period of no more than 3 years without prejudice to paragraph 6 of Article 32.

Reason

To ensure that the socioeconomic impact is taken into account before decisions are taken.

Amendment 13

Article 32

Exercise of delegation

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 11, 13, 19 28 and 31 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from [----]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the 5-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 3 months before the end of each period.

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 11, 13, 19 and 28 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from [----] and for a period of 3 years in the case of Article 31 . The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the 5-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 3 months before the end of each period.

Reason

Article 31 empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to apply for a period of 3 years. The Commission’s powers under Article 32, however, appear to apply for 5 years.

Amendment 14

Article 34

Review and Reporting

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
1 …	1 …
2 …	2 …
3 …	3 …
	4. the report shall be based on a comprehensive territorial impact assessment conducted by the Commission in each sea basin area in order to evaluate the environmental and socioeconomic impact of the measures.

Reason

A comprehensive review of the impact of policy measures resulting from the regulation in the different regions is an important condition for evidence-based policy making. It would allow for an implementation of a full policy cycle, integrating regulation, impact assessment and feedback.

II. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

General recommendations

considers the elaboration of clear and simple rules that are easy to comprehend and apply for fishers of great importance for the success of the Common Fisheries Policy; in view of the number of regulations affected by the draft regulation on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (hereafter ‘the proposal’) considers the proposal a real step towards regulatory simplification of the technical measures in European fisheries;

welcomes the legislative approach adopted for the proposal: a baseline framework regulation and regionalisation rules in annexes that can be amended under a simplified and inclusive regionalisation process foreseen in the draft regulation; this approach allows for the establishment of common rules that are common throughout all sea basins, and provides enough flexibility to adapt the technical measures to the specific needs that might arise regionally;

welcomes the fact that the proposal upholds the principle of proportionality, as laid out in Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union;

calls upon the legislator to keep the simple layout of the proposal in its initial form;

calls upon the legislator to avoid adopting exceptions and derogations that would distort the level playing field, unless there is a specific need arising regionally;

Regionalisation component

notes that the regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) offers to regions and Member States the opportunity to actively manage fish stocks within the objectives of the CFP;

notes that the ability to submit joint recommendations defining appropriate technical measures at the regional level should not be a function of the establishment of multiannual plans but should be open to all fisheries;

considers the regionalisation an opportunity to develop a flexible system for active management of regional fisheries on the basis of qualitative and quantitative parameters in accordance with the objectives and targets set by the Common Fisheries Policy;

calls on the Commission to take specific local features into account as regards minimum conservation reference sizes, and to allow Annexes V to X to be amended via a simplified procedure and in coordination with local and regional authorities;

10.

calls upon the legislator to assure coherence between the texts of the CFP Regulation, Multiannual Plans and the current proposal;

Trust-based approach and buy-in of all stakeholders in the reform

11.

considers very important the adoption of a trust-based approach in the regulation of EU fisheries; the CoR notes that such an approach is much needed to avoid further alienation of the fishing community; policy makers should be able to trust fishers to implement fully the reform, and fishers should be able to trust policy makers not be left behind. An approach based on trust requires a cross-cutting effort that would necessitate that all stakeholders look into fishing not only from the point of view of fishing capacity, fishing effort and quotas, but to include social elements and low environmental impact and sustainability in the future of the sector;

12.

calls upon the legislator to include certain incentives that would make compliance with the rules a natural choice for fishers; such incentives could be of economic, social, administrative or other nature compatible with Union legislation, and under the condition that certain criteria are met; incentives should be developed in the spirit of a ‘culture of compliance and cooperation’, as provided in art 36. 2 (g) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013;

13.

noting that quota distribution is a responsibility of Member States, the adoption of provisions allowing small-scale fisheries to manage directly quotas (1) and catches might be a great opportunity for redressing historic injustices to small-scale and inshore fishers whilst enabling them to play a greater role in the stewardship of the sea, assuring a level playing field with larger scale fisheries, and balance between rights and obligations. Empowering small fishers to manage quotas of certain stocks on the basis of certain milestone achievements under strict control will allow fishers to identify themselves as shareholders in the managed asset (fish) and have the stimulus to take good care of it;

14.

supports the European Parliament (2) in its call on the European Commission and EU Member States to gradually increase the quotas allocated to non-industrial fisheries in order to help this sustainable form of fishing;

15.

such a decentralised system for the management of fishing rights should be based on the following baseline principles:

1.	conservation of marine resources and environmental protection as an ultimate condition

2.	based on scientific advice and recommendations

3.	strict control and rolling assessment of the implementation

4.	built-in flexibility to allow adjustments after assessments and pilot phase

5.	fishing rights should be designed as a percentage of MSY as an incentive for fishers to actively pursue recovery of fish stocks;

Importance of Small Scale Fisheries for Small European Fishing Communities

16.

notes that for small coastal towns across Europe small scale coastal fisheries are part of an unique ecosystem that includes heritage, community cohesion, tourism, food and hospitality;

17.

regrets that the ongoing CFP reform does not consider to its full extent the importance of small scale coastal fishing as local custodians of the sea with local historical knowledge and tradition, a way of life, and an important link in the socioeconomic life in coastal towns;

18.

appeals to the legislator and to Member States to tap all unused potential support and ecological benefit for small scale fisheries existing in the current CFP;

19.

considers, in this regard, as a very positive sign that the proposed regulation on technical measures would not require small fishers to invest in new equipment and nets;

20.

notes that small scale fishermen feel increasingly disconnected from policymaking due to the ineffective governance and overregulation from previous decades, followed by a ground-breaking reform that introduces multiple new regulations, including discard ban/landing obligation, regionalisation, MAPs and overhaul of technical measures, Control regulation and data collection;

21.

reiterates its position that EU fisheries policy should form a central part of a broader blue growth strategy that takes into account the specificities of the fisheries sector, and also the growth of all sectors of the blue economy including maritime industries and tourism, as well as employment and environment protection; and that entrepreneurship in the blue economy extends beyond operations in our seas and oceans (3) encompassing all coastal regions.

Brussels, 7 December 2016.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Markku MARKKULA

(1) As provided under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and under 19.4.(c) of the current proposal.

(2) 2015/2090(INI).

(3) NAT-V-044.