Amen­de­menten Hazekamp in de visse­rij­com­missie op de Natuur­her­stelwet

Amendment 183

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. This Regulation establishes a framework within which Member States shall put in place, without delay, effective and area-based restoration measures which together shall cover, by 2030, at least 20 % of the Union’s land and sea areas and, by 2050, all ecosystems in need of restoration.	2. This Regulation establishes a framework within which Member States shall put in place, without delay, effective and area-based restoration measures which together shall cover, by 2030, at least 30 % of the Union’s land and 30% of the Union's sea areas and, by 2050, all ecosystems in need of restoration.

Justification

This amendment reiterates the position of the European Parliament from who called specific targets to restore at least 30 % of degraded ecosystems at Union level by 2030 (Resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives (2020/2273(INI)).

Amendment 193

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2a. Member States shall contribute to the Union's nature restoration targets set out in Article 1(2), in a manner proportional to their total land and sea area, in line with their obligations set forth by this Regulation.

Justification

Whilst the overarching objective is set at EU level, each Member State shall contribute fairly and, in a manner, proportionate to their total land and sea are to it and detail their respective contributions to the EU-wide objective, including by providing information on how the area-based restoration measures included in their national restoration plans contribute to it.

Amendment 217

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(15a) “whole site approach” means a method for applying an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities which accounts for the ecosystem as a whole, to be implemented by conserving and restoring a range of species and habitats across a larger area than the evidenced extent of the individual feature of interest, including associated species or habitats that are important to the ‘feature’ of interest, to enhance ecological recovery processes to its full extent. This approach is particularly relevant for the restoration of open and dynamic systems, like marine ecosystems, which are influenced by currents, seasons, water temperature and other oceanographic processes;

Amendment 251

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Member States shall put in place the restoration measures that are necessary to improve to good condition areas of habitat types listed in Annex II which are not in good condition. Such measures shall be in place on at least 30 % of the area of each group of habitat types listed in Annex II that is not in good condition, as quantified in the national restoration plan referred to in Article 12, by 2030, on at least 60 % by 2040, and on at least 90 % by 2050.	1. Member States shall put in place the restoration measures that are necessary to significantly and permanently improve to good condition areas of habitat types listed in Annex II which are not in good condition. Such measures shall be in place on at least 70 % of the area of each group of habitat types listed in Annex II that is not in good condition, as quantified in the national restoration plan referred to in Article 12, by 2030, and on 100 % by 2040, in order to ensure that benefits from the restoration measures materialise by 2050.

Justification

Marine restoration takes time to deliver, depending on ecosystems, it can take several years or even decades for habitats to be restored (e.g. seagrass, reefs). It is important to act early enough, so that restoration benefits can build over time. The proposal to have only 30% of habitats types listed in Annex II covered by restoration measures, would correspond to about 10% of EU seas total surface, which would be falling short of the overarching 20% restoration target proposed by the Commission under Article 1.2.

This amendment introduces a higher proportion (70%) of degraded habitats to be covered by 2030, and then 100% by 2040, so that the restoration and resilience of habitats and ecosystems increases in time and are entirely delivered by 2050 at the latest.

Amendment 269

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. Member States shall put in place the restoration measures that are necessary to re-establish the habitat types listed in Annex II in areas not covered by those habitat types. Such measures shall be in place on areas representing at least 30 % of the additional overall surface needed to reach the total favourable reference area of each group of habitat types, as quantified in the national restoration plan referred to in Article 12, by 2030, at least 60 % of that surface by 2040, and 100 % of that surface by 2050.	2. Member States shall put in place the restoration measures that are necessary to significantly and permanently re-establish the habitat types listed in Annex II in areas not covered by those habitat types. Such measures shall be in place on areas representing at least 100 % of the additional overall surface needed to reach the total favourable reference area of each group of habitat types, as quantified in the national restoration plan referred to in Article 12, by 2030, at least 200 % of the re-establisded surface by 2040, and 300 % of that surface by 2050.

Justification

Based on 'favourable reference areas' reported by Member States for marine habitats, the overall area to be re-created as strict minimum is estimated to be 1620 km2, representing only 0.03% of EU seas’ area. This data is an underestimate (according to the European Commission) as most MS did not report enough information. The NRL must raise the ambition and go beyond this strict minimum of re-establishment target, so that habitat re-creation makes a higher contribution to the overarching restoration target of the NRL. It is proposed that the total favourable reference area of each group of habitats is covered by re-creation measures by 2030, and that this area is doubled by 2040, and tripled by 2050.

Amendment 271

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2a. Member States shall put in place restoration measures, in addition to those under Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3), to achieve the objective set out in Art 1(2) to adequately cover the diversity of the constituent marine habitats and species to be restored, for other marine species and habitats, beyond those listed in Annex II and III, including those covered by international or regional agreements such as Regional Sea Conventions and pursuant to the objective of Directive 2008/56/EC.

Justification

This article complements the restoration measures focused on degraded Annex II marine habitats (covering 4% of EU seas) in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3). It is justified by the fact that Member States will need to put in place additional restoration measures, beyond Annex II degraded habitats, in order to deliver the 20% EU seas target. The focus of this additional restoration should be on other important marine habitats types necessary to achieve Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC), and which are necessary to restore the diversity of ocean’s ecosystems.

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex II, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance, including their typical species, referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3. Areas where the habitat types listed in Annex II are in unknown condition shall be considered as not being in good condition.	4. The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 2a and 3 shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex II, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance, including their typical species, referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3. Areas where the habitat types listed in Annex II are in unknown condition shall be considered as not being in good condition.

Justification

Technical amendment to include under the scope this provision, paragraph 5(2a) which expands the coverage of restoration measures to habitats included in Directive 2008/56/EC

Amendment 291

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
6. Member States shall ensure that the areas that are subject to restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 show a continuous improvement in the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex II until good condition is reached, and a continuous improvement of the quality of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3 until the sufficient quality of those habitats is reached. Member States shall ensure that areas in which good condition has been reached and in which the sufficient quality of the habitats of the species has been reached do not deteriorate.	6. Member States shall ensure that the areas that are subject to restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 2a and 3 show a continuous improvement in the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex II until good condition is reached, and a continuous improvement of the quality of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3 until the sufficient quality of those habitats is reached. Member States shall ensure that areas in which good condition has been reached and in which the sufficient quality of the habitats of the species has been reached do not deteriorate through the adoption of appropriate long-term conservation measures, such as strict protection, which correspond to the ecological requirements of those areas and habitats.

Justification

Without protection, restoration is meaningless. If the area subject to restoration or restored is not protected against pressure affecting the restored ecosystems, all efforts and resources spent into the restoration will be in vain. Granting protected status to restoration areas is necessary ensure that non-deterioration of the habitat types.

Amendment 297

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	6a. Member States shall ensure that marine restoration measures adopted in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article are achieved through passive restoration.

Amendment 298

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	6b. Appropriate buffer zones shall be created around each marine restoration area, with adequate restrictions ensuring harmful impacts from human activities occurring in surrounding areas are minimised inside restoration areas, particularly wide-ranging impacts like sediment suspension and underwater noise which can travel over large distances underwater.

Justification

Buffer zones are effective to mitigate the impacts of activities and threats occurring around restoration areas at sea which can jeopardise the restoration process. Activities in a buffer area are therefore regulated appropriately to protect the core area. Sustainable, non-intrusive activities may be authorised.

Amendment 297

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	6a. Member States shall ensure that marine restoration measures adopted in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article are achieved through passive restoration.

Amendment 298

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	6b. Appropriate buffer zones shall be created around each marine restoration area, with adequate restrictions ensuring harmful impacts from human activities occurring in surrounding areas are minimised inside restoration areas, particularly wide-ranging impacts like sediment suspension and underwater noise which can travel over large distances underwater.

Justification

Buffer zones are effective to mitigate the impacts of activities and threats occurring around restoration areas at sea which can jeopardise the restoration process. Activities in a buffer area are therefore regulated appropriately to protect the core area. Sustainable, non-intrusive activities may be authorised.

Amendment 327

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	9a. When applying paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Article, Member States shall ensure that the application does not exclude or compromise the achievement of the objectives of this Directive and is consistent with the implementation of other Union environmental legislation, particularly with Directive 92/43/EEC.

Amendment 332

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 10 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(aa) an increase of habitat area in good condition for habitat types necessary to achieve good environmental status under Directive 2008/56/EC, until at least 90 % is in good condition and until the favourable reference area for each habitat type in each marine region or subregion of their territory is reached;

Amendment 301

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	7a. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the areas subject to restoration as defined in Articles 4 and 5, but likely to have a significant effect thereon, shall be subject to an impact assessment of its implications for areas subject to restoration measures in view of the areas' restoration objectives. Such assessment shall ensure compliance with the non-deterioration provisions pursuant to Articles 5(6), 5(7), 5(10), and the precautionary principle.

Amendment 303

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	7a. Member States shall ensure the continuous, long-term and sustained effects of restoration measures adopted under this Article, in line with Article 12(2)(i), through effective means, including spatial protection measures contributing to coherent and representative networks of protected areas and targets of the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy.

Justification

Without protection, restoration is pointless. If the area subject to restoration or restored is not protected against pressure affecting the restored ecosystems, all efforts and resources spent into the restoration will be in vain. Granting some protective status to restoration areas is necessary, and a recognised best practice to ensure that both the continuous improvement and the non-deterioration of the targeted habitats types. As such, all damaging activities should be excluded from and around restoration areas, which should be designated as strictly protected areas.

Amendment 305

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 7 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	7c. Member States shall embrace the concept of 'site approach' in areas subject to restoration, by applying restoration measures to the entire area concerned, and not just part of it, thus recognising the complexity of ecosystems interactions and enabling ecosystems recovery and reestablishment to their maximum potential.

Justification

The concept of “site approach” to restoration areas goes against the usual and insufficient “feature-based approach” that only focuses on specific features within an area, such as rocky reefs or key species, and which is insufficient to protect and allow the recovery of the diversity of marine ecosystems. By managing areas in a holistic way, covering the entire site, for instance to restrict damaging activities, associated species to the different habitats, like mobile species dependent on healthy bottom features, will be able to populate and rewild the area.

Amendment 308

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 8 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
8. Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 is justified if caused by:	8. If compatible with the gradual achievement of the restoration targets set out in this Regulation, outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 can be justified if Member States provide compelling evidence that it is caused by:

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 8 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) a project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case basis.	deleted

Amendment 315

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
9. For Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligation set out in paragraphs 6 and 7, is justified if caused by:	deleted
(a) force majeure;
(b) unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate change: or
(c) a plan or project authorised in accordance with Article 6(4) of the Directive 92/43/EEC.

Amendment 332

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 10 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(aa) an increase of habitat area in good condition for habitat types necessary to achieve good environmental status under Directive 2008/56/EC, until at least 90 % is in good condition and until the favourable reference area for each habitat type in each marine region or subregion of their territory is reached;

Amendment 334

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 10 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(ba) an increase of the habitats area covered by effective spatial conservation measures, including strictly protected areas, established for the purpose of restoration objectives.

Amendment 362

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2a. For the restoration measures required under Article 5, Member States shall communicate the information in Article 11(2) and any information relevant and sufficient for the purpose of Article 11(3) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 to Member States having a direct management interest in the fishery to be affected by such measures by [insert first day of the month following 12 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation].

Justification

In order for the marine restoration measures included in national restoration plans to be implementable, Member States need to make use of the process included in Articles 11(2) - 11(3) of the CFP Regulation. To that end, and in line with the principle of regionalisation, they shall communicate to Member States having a direct management interest in the fisheries to be affected by such measures, all necessary information for those measures gathered in the context of the preparation of their restoration plans, thus initiating the joint recommendations process (and related deadline for reaching a bilateral agreement) of Art 11(3) of the CFP Regulation.

For the deadlines set in Article 14 to be upheld and the objective of the present Regulation to not be violated, the communication of such information needs to be timely, i.e. 6 months before the deadline to submit national restoration plans.

Amendment 386

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 10

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
10. Member States shall, where possible, foster synergies with the national restoration plans of other Member States, in particular for ecosystems that span across borders.	10. Member States shall, where possible, foster synergies with the national restoration plans of other Member States, in particular for ecosystems that span across borders. At sea, synergies should also be fostered through the processes foreseen in Directive 2014/89/EU.

Justification

Seas are cross-border. The Maritime Spatial Planning process would be an appropriate instrument already in place to find synergies between Member States.

Amendment 426

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The national restoration plans shall, where applicable, include the conservation measures that a Member State intends to adopt under the common fisheries policy, including conservation measures in joint recommendations that a Member State intends to initiate in accordance with the procedure set out in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and any relevant information on those measures.	3. The national restoration plans shall, where applicable, include the conservation measures that a Member State intends to adopt under the common fisheries policy, including conservation measures in joint recommendations that a Member State submitted in accordance with the procedure set out in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and any relevant information on those measures.
	Where no joint recommendations have been submitted within six months of the provision of sufficient information as provided for in Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the Member States having a direct management interest shall be deemed, pursuant to their shared responsibility and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to have agreed to the measures proposed by the initiating Member State for the purposes of agreeing joint recommendations under Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. The initiating Member State shall directly submit its proposed Joint Recommendations for restoration purpose to the Commission for adoption under Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Justification

This Amendment is to be read in conjunction with the proposal in Art.11(2a) to overcome the deadlock that the current application of the CFP would provide for the marine targets. As above, this proposal fills a current gap of the CFP and seeks to support the achievement of the objective of the CFP Regulation.

To successfully deliver marine restoration, the NRL must ensure that the processes to adopt fisheries management under the CFP Joint Recommendation (JR) is effective and fit for the purpose and timeline of the NRL. The European Court of Auditors identified article 11 as inadequate to manage fishing inside EU Marine Protected Areas. The NRL must therefore harmonize the CFP rules with the NRL objectives, so that the CFP can support and help achieve its objectives, and equally meet its own sustainability objectives for marine ecosystems. As such the proposal would also incentivise MS to initiate CFP Joint Recommendations.

Amendment 431

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3a. For areas falling within the scope of Article 12(3), the Commission shall, within 6 months after the adoption of the final restoration plan under Article 14(6), adopt restoration measures constituting ‘conservation measures’ under Part III of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and pursuant to articles 11(4) or 11(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 in the following circumstances:
	a) In the absence of the Joint Recommendations submitted in line with Article 12(3); or
	b) In the absence of Joint Recommendations sufficient to comply with the targets and obligations set out in Article 5.

Justification

This amendment, linked to the CFP, introduces a safeguard where no or weak joint recommendations are submitted.

Amendment 479

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25a) Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 481

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25b) Blue shark (Prionace glauca)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 484

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25c) Common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 488

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25d) Angular roughshark (Oxynotus centrina)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 490

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25e) Shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 492

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25f) Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 496

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 g (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25g) Thornback ray (Raja clavata)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 498

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 h (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25h) Common Eagle Ray (Myliobatis Aquila)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 503

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 i (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25i) Lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 505

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 j (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25j) Mediterranean sandeel (Gymnammodytes cicerelus)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 507

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 k (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25k) Caplin (Mallotus villosus)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 508

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 l (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25l) Hammerheads sharks (Sphyrna spp.: S. lewini; S. mokarra)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 510

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 m (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25m) Flapper skate (Dipturus intermedia)

Amendment 511

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 n (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25n) Long-snouted Seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus/ramulosus)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 512

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 o (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25o) Short-snouted Seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 513

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 p (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25p) European eel (Anguilla anguilla)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 514

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 q (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25q) Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 515

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 r (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25r) European hake (Merluccius merluccius)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 516

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 s (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25s) Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 517

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 t (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25t) Dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

</Amend>

Amendment 518

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 u (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(25u) Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax)

Justification

New pelagic marine species are suggested (sharks) to expand the coverage of restoration to important pelagic habitats, currently missing in the proposal. Pelagic habitats are ecologically important thanks to the presence of phytoplankton, microscopic plants, that provide the primary production in these ecosystems and which are the basis of food-webs for many marine species including species of fish, sharks or seabirds.

Amendment 525

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex VII – point 24 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(24a) Adopt large scale passive restoration areas with closures to all forms of extractive human activities, including commercial fisheries, to allow seascape ecosystem regeneration.

Justification

Proposed restoration measure to protect large sea areas by prohibiting all fishing practices in large passive restoration areas.

</Amend>

Amendment 526

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex VII – point 24 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(24b) Protect coastal waters found within 6 nautical miles from the coast, by prohibiting industrial fishing activities and fisheries using mobile bottom contacting gears to protect marine ecosystems from the negative impacts of fishing activities.

Justification

Proposed restoration measure to protect the coastal sea areas by prohibiting the most destructive fishing practices and industrial fishing, and thus alleviating pressure on seabed and marine habitats, fish spawning and nurseries grounds etc. while giving preferential access to low impact fisheries.

Amendment 526

Anja Hazekamp

Proposal for a regulation

Annex VII – point 24 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(24b) Protect coastal waters found within 6 nautical miles from the coast, by prohibiting industrial fishing activities and fisheries using mobile bottom contacting gears to protect marine ecosystems from the negative impacts of fishing activities.

Justification

Proposed restoration measure to protect the coastal sea areas by prohibiting the most destructive fishing practices and industrial fishing, and thus alleviating pressure on seabed