Activities of Sofia RIBEIRO related to 2015/2093(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
How to make fisheries controls in Europe uniform (A8-0234/2016 - Isabelle Thomas) PT
Amendments (28)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0000/2016) (‘European Fisheries Control Agency’ – PECH/8/05354),
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
Citation 10 a (new)
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0000/2016) (‘traceability of fishery and aquaculture products in restaurants and retail’ – PECH/8/05296),
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas there is real inequity or it is felt by the fishermen as regards the implementation of fisheries control in Europeregularity, severity, thoroughness, and effectiveness of fisheries control in Europe and as regards the differences in administrative and/or criminal penalties;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas substantial differences exist in the application of European regulations in Member States, particularly those induced by the ‘control’ regulation, and whereas each Member State has different administrative and judicial structures, which are inevitably reflected in the systems of administrative and/or criminal penalties for failure to comply with CFP rules and in the fact that those systems lead to discrepancies and unfairness from one Member State to the next;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the diverse fields of application of the controls and the disparity between different inspection sites, with some Member States organising control of equipment via the tax baseat every stage from fishing up to the time of reaching the final consumer and others controlling only certain links in the chain and excluding aspects relating to transport of catches, for example;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the diversity in the organisation of controls, with some Member States splitting them up between different administrations and others carrying them out under the auspices of a single body, and also notes the diversity of instruments, tools and human, logistic, and financial resources used to effect such controls;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that the effectiveness of controls also varies on account of the immense diversity of fishing grounds within the EU, ranging from narrow, confined zones, whose fishery resources are shared essentially by neighbouring Member States, to very distant and remote zones; maintains that the specific features of the outermost regions (ORs), whose vast and eminently oceanic exclusive economic zones (EEZs), combined with the type of fish stocks exploited (mostly deep-water species and highly migratory pelagic fishes ) and the dearth of alternative resources, clearly warrant tighter control measures in those regions, which depend greatly on fishing and are very vulnerable to the extreme harm caused by fleets known to infringe CFP rules;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes a difference in approach between controls based on a calculation of risk and random checkrisk assessment and random checks on fishing activity and marketing channels for catches;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that most random checks are performed at the time of landing while inspections at sea reveal an apparently higher rate of infraction than those conducted on land, since they are based on risk assessment;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that Member States transpose the regulations into national law differently because of the large number of optional provisions in Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009; stresses the non- enforceability of some of its provisions in practice, either owing to the poor adaptability of the regulations to realitythe defining characteristics of the fisheries sector (fleet, fishing gear, fishing grounds, and target species), which vary from one Member State to another, or because of contradictions such as Article 17 of this Regulation which is open to several different interpretations by inspectors;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the level of infraction differs from one Member State to another, and that for the same infraction the sanction may be either an administrative or penal one; contends that the points-based systemfishing licence system, with points deducted for non-compliance, could be a European instrument which would serve to impose sanctions for serious infractions, but that without the necessary uniformity would aggravate an already inequitable situation entailing inequalities among operators in Member States;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the implementation by the EFCA of a ‘core curriculum’ for the training of fisheries inspectors is one starting point for the standardisation of inspector training and control procedures; notes that Member States do not have, unless it is voluntarily so, the same training standards, which means that the content of qualifications, recruitment and objectives are different;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that fishermen are trained and informed differently from one Member State to another and that no tool simplifying or granting easier access toas regards the aims and substance of the ‘control’ regulation has been put in place; is of the view that this situation is a major disincentive to the desirable uniform application of this legislation;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that the use of new monitoring and real-time information transmission technologies is essential to improving maritime surveillance; regrets the technical incompatibility of certain instruments used by Member States as well as the only partial sharing of databases relating to control and the resultant disparity and loss of efficiency;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is in favour of the simplification and improvement of Union legislation with a view to achieving ‘better lawmaking’, in particular through the revision of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, scheduled for 2017;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that the Commission should attend to the uniform and accurate transposition of the Regulation and verify the state of implementation of existing legislation; believes furthermore that control procedures should be transparent, even-handed, and standardised;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Supports the strengthening of cooperation between Member States through the exchanges between of inspectors and the exchange of control methods, and through data and risk analysis sharing;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for the implementation by the EFCA of a European training course for inspectors based on a common syllabus and standardised rules;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Proposes the improvement of training and information for fishermenfor fishermen and the information provided to them about control measures, both of which could be incorporated into their professional organisations and the coastal action groups (CAGs), with a view to improving their understanding of the purpose and general importance of the regulations and thus inculcate a culture of understanding and respect for them; recommends in this regard that consultations with the advisory committees would be effective; proposes to create online databases making the regulations accessible for all to read and understand; is of the opinion that the EMFF could contribute to these measures;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses the necessity to strengthen the role of the EFCA, particularly its budget, skills and human resources; suggests revising the conditions of intervention referred to in Articles 94 and 95 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and to give it in particular the initiative of intervention over all speciesfishery resources which are overexploited and those which have not reached the maximum sustainable yield (MSY);
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Suggests that at least one representative of the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries be included on the Management Board of the Agency, on which there are already six representatives from the Commission and one from each Member State;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recommends expanding the controls to cover the entire chain of production and assigning responsibilities for control at sea to a single administrative body in order to avoid an overlapping of controls, which causes unnecessary pressurewastes human, logistic, and financial resources and causes confusion and unnecessary pressure on those operating in the fisheries sector;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Is of the view that controls based on risk assessment should be based on transparent, specific, and measurable criteria defined at European level;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for a standardisation of sanctions and prefers economic sanctions, including temporary suspensions of activity in the form of a ban on fishing trips, rather than penal sanctions, but also recalls the need to introduce incentives for fishermen; who comply with CFP rules;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Is of the view that the capacity of actors to invest in modern technologies compatible with each other will make controlsfrom one Member State to the next will make controls fairer, more balanced, and more efficient;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Recommends enforcing a control equivalent to that governing imported fishery products on shore fishing and recreational fishing as well as on the European fleet fishing in non-EU waters and on the fleets of non-EU countries fishing in European waters; proposes to make the exchange of data mandatory as regards illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUU);
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Asserts that the available budgetary resources, particularly under the EMFF, should be consistent withrealistic, consistent, and sufficient to pursue the objectives of controls;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Requests the development of a datamonitoring, information transfer, and data analysis system which is compatible throughout the Union; further requests that it falls to the Commission to set the framework for, and lay down the substance of, the exchange of data and information;