What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Articles 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, 38, 39, 43 and 349,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common fisheries policy (CFP),

– having regard to Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive),

– having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2012 on small-scale coastal fishing, artisanal fishing and the reform of the common fisheries policy,

– having regard to its resolution of 21 January 2021 on More fish in the seas? Measures to promote stock recovery above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), including fish recovery areas and marine protected areas,

– having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2021 on securing the objectives of the landing obligation under Article 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy,

– having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2021 on ‘the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’,

– having regard to its resolution of 16 September 2021 on ‘Fishers for the future: Attracting a new generation of workers to the fishing industry and generating employment in coastal communities’,

– having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2021 on a farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system,

– having regard to its resolution of 5 April 2022 on the future of fisheries in the Channel, North Sea, Irish Sea and Atlantic Ocean in the light of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU,

– having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2022 on the implementation of Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation,

– having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2023 on the small-scale fisheries situation in the EU and future perspectives,

– having regard to the Council Resolution of 3 November 1976 on certain external aspects of the creation of a 200-mile fishing zone in the Community with effect from 1 January 1977 (1976 Hague Resolution), and in particular Annex VII thereto,

– having regard to the Commission communication of 10 October 2007 entitled ‘An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union’ (COM(2007)0575),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’ (COM(2020)0380),

– having regard to the Commission Communication of 21 February 2023 entitled on ‘The common fisheries policy today and tomorrow: a Fisheries and Oceans Pact towards sustainable, science-based, innovative and inclusive fisheries management’ (COM(2023)0103),

– having regard to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) report of 26 September 2019 entitled ‘Social data in the EU fisheries sector (STECF 19-03)’,

– having regard to the STECF report of 10 December 2020 entitled ‘Social dimension of the CFP (STECF 20-14)’,

– having regard to the study conducted for the Committee on Fisheries of July 2021 entitled ‘Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on EU fisheries and aquaculture’,

– having regard to the STECF report of 8 December 2021 entitled ‘The 2021 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 21-08)’,

– having regard to maritime economic paper No 8/2020 of 9 March 2021 entitled ‘The EU fishing fleet 2020: Trends and economic results’ produced by the Commission Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,

– having regard to the report of the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency of the European Commission, of 7 October 2022, entitled ‘Climate change and the common fisheries policy’,

– having regard to the 2017 World Bank report on ‘The Sunken Billions Revisited - Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries’,

– having regard to the opinion of the Galician Fisheries Council of 8 February 2022 on the review of the Common Fisheries Policy,

– having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0357/2023),

A. whereas given that Parliament has already expressed its views on several specific features of the CFP, this report builds on previous sectoral reports and provides an overall political assessment of the functioning of the CFP and a reflection on the future outlook, focusing in particular on the conservation of living marine resources and the management of fisheries under the CFP;

B. whereas Article 39 TFEU requires that the CFP, in all its areas, particularly the conservation of marine biological resources, must among other things, ensure a fair standard of living for the fishing community and assure availability of supplies (food security); whereas Article 11 TFEU also stipulates that ‘environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union’s policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development’;

C. whereas the CFP seeks to ensure ‘that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits’; whereas the CFP also includes the objective of contributing to the ‘availability of food supplies’ and mentions the objectives of implementing ‘the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised’, of contributing ‘to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects’ and of promoting ‘coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio-economic aspects’;

D. whereas achieving conservation of exploited stocks and the environmental objectives of the CFP overall would not be sufficient to conclude that the CFP has succeeded;

E. whereas it is appropriate to keep a balance between the three pillars of sustainability and to address gaps in the social dimension of the CFP;

F. whereas the CFP must also contribute to the supply of sustainable food to the EU market and to reducing the EU market’s dependence on food imports;

G. whereas food security is one of the sustainable development goals (SDGs); whereas fish protein has extraordinary strategic value and is essential for food security; whereas capture fisheries are among the lowest impact systems for the production of animal protein;

H. whereas the Commission has identified the need to produce more food from the oceans as a strategic objective; whereas a report by the High Level Scientific Group in 2017, appointed by the then Commissioner Karmenu Vella, recommends ‘mainstream[ing] a “food from the ocean” paradigm of responsible culture and capture into broad EU and global systems-level policy agendas’;

I. whereas EU fisheries represent a strategic sector for the EU, providing a substantial number of direct and indirect jobs in fishing and coastal areas, help ensure food security and maintain a sustainable economy by linking employment and people’s livelihoods to the territory and to the maintenance of cultural traditions;

J. whereas fishing creates jobs both at sea and on land; whereas some regions rely on landings happening locally to ensure the viability of many businesses and to maintain lively coastal communities;

K. whereas aquatic food producers and related industries play a vital role for society and for the communities they support;

L. whereas fishing makes an indispensable contribution to food security in the EU;

M. whereas the objectives of ensuring the food supply from EU fisheries and of ensuring a fair standard of living should play a more prominent role in the decision-making process;

N. whereas a healthy European fisheries sector is essential to reduce dependence on third countries, such as China, when it comes to the EU’s food supply;

O. whereas the ocean must be recognised as a common good of humanity in international negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations;

P. whereas the EU should promote the objectives of the CFP internationally, establishing a level playing field and cooperating with third countries and international organisations in order to improve compliance with international rules, including measures to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge;

Q. whereas there is a need to determine a fishery resource management policy that upholds collective access to fishery resources, is based primarily on their biological aspects and amounts to a fisheries co-management system that takes account of the specific conditions of fishery resources and the respective sea areas, with the effective participation of those working in the sector;

R. whereas in its Communication on ‘The common fisheries policy today and tomorrow: a Fisheries and Oceans Pact towards sustainable, science-based, innovative and inclusive fisheries management’, the Commission proposes that the CFP be implemented better rather than revised;

S. whereas, when adopting successive regional multiannual plans starting in 2016, the European Parliament and the Council decided to require the use of MSY-based fishing mortality levels only for the main target stocks; whereas these plans also provide for some necessary additional flexibility in these mortality reference levels, notably to take into account the interactions between stocks and fisheries (choke species effects); whereas, in the multiannual plan for the Western Mediterranean, the legislator decided furthermore to postpone the deadline for application of MSY-based fishing mortality levels to 2025;

T. whereas scientists recognise that achieving MSY for all stocks simultaneously is, in practice, impossible;

U. whereas the health of fish stocks varies between different EU waters;

V. whereas fisheries management measures adopted under the CFP are bearing fruit, as the number of fish stocks exploited at sustainable levels is increasing, making higher yields possible for stocks that were overexploited;

W. whereas the EU did not meet the 2020 deadline to achieve the MSY exploitation rate for all fishing stocks; whereas, however, considerable progress has been made towards achieving the MSY target, particularly in the north-east Atlantic and Baltic Sea, where in 2020, 99 % of landings that are managed solely by the EU and for which scientific advice was available, were ‘sustainably managed stocks’;

X. whereas the EU has committed itself to delivering on the UN 2030 Agenda, which includes SDG 14 ‘to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development’;

Y. whereas the 2013 CFP review led to a major paradigm shift in decades of fisheries management, by requiring all catches, particularly those of species out of quotas or of undersized fish, to be kept on board vessels and landed; whereas, however, this tool, which was designed to contribute to the implementation of the objective of the progressive elimination of discards of unwanted catches in fisheries, seems to have become an objective in itself;

Z. whereas the landing obligation makes many mixed fisheries unprofitable, notably because fishers have to sort out and store low-value or non-marketable fish on board, increasing labour, reducing resting time and storage space on board; whereas the landing obligation also risks resulting in under-utilisation of rightful fishing opportunities for some stocks, since vessels have to stop any fishing activity once their quota for one stock (choke species) has been exhausted;