BETA

28 Amendments of Ian DUNCAN related to 2015/2092(INI)

Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas, since 2009, legislative proposals regarding technical measures and multiannual plans have made little headway, partly on account of tensions arising between the European institutions concerning their respective decision- making powers under Article 43 TFEU with regard to Commission proposals in the case of the multinational plans and partly because of difficulties in bringing legislation into line with the Lisbon Treaty regarding the technical measures;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas technical measures are currently so complex, and diverse and disorganised, as to bdue to them being an accumulation of 30 years of fisheries legislation, they are frequently inconsistent or even contradictory, not to mention being difficult for those in the fisheries sector to comprehend and particularly difficult for enforcement agencies to monitor;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas the failure of the Council to adopt a clear position has prevented the alignment of legislation regarding technical measures with the Treaty of Lisbon; whereas, following the CFP reform, the deadlock is apparently being resolved through delegated acts adopted by the Commission on the proposal of Member States;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas the definition of basic principles common to all basins through a framework regulation adopted by codecision ('ordinary legislative procedure' under the Lisbon Treaty), is necessary to ensure a level playing field between operators and facilitate the implementation and monitoring of technical measures;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
L. whereas regionalisation canmust ensure that rultechnical measures are adapted to the specific requirements of each fishery and each basin, ensuring flexibility and facilitating a rapid response to any emergencies arising; whereas regionalisation must make technical measures simpler and easier to understand, implement and enforce; the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis should follow the model agreed by the co- legislators as agreed under the reformed CFP
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
M. whereas regionalisation can help make the rules simpler and more comprehensible, which would be greatly welcomed by the fisheries sector, especially where it is involved in the adoption thereof;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
N. whereas regionalisation should not lead to renationalisation, this being incompatible with the CFP, under which the EU has sole responsibility, given the shared nature of the resources;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
O. whereas the adoption of technical measures on a regional basis should follow the model agreed by the co- legislators under the new common fisheries policy, namely for adoption by the Commission of delegated acts on the basis of joint recommendations from the Member States concerned;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
P. whereas certain proposals for specific regulations containing technical measures (concerning driftnets, cetacean bycatches, ban on on-board shark finning or deep-sea fishing) have proved controversial; whereas some proposals, such as those concerning deep-sea fishing in the northeast Atlantic, have been blocked for over three years; whereas deliberations on driftnet fishing are also deadlocked; whereas a number of specific provisions regarding technical measures, such as those concerning on-board shark finning, have been rejected by the RFMOs,deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Q. whereas technical measures applicable in the Mediterranean are not always adapted to the needs of the different local fisheries;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
R. whereas the Mediterranevery sean basin is veryfaces different to other EU fishing basins, since it is shared by third countries with conservation rules very different to those of Europe;challenges and therefore fishermen need a set of technical measures which is based on a regional approach and which responds to the diverse conditions of each sea basin
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
U. whereas difficulties in implementing the discard ban in mixed (demersal) fisheries are likely to arise with ‘choke’ species; whereas the multiannual plans should therefore seek to promote instruments, such as fishing effort regulatiexplicitly use the scientifically established ranges of MSY fishing mortality and focus on, that are unconstrained by the rigiditie primary target species in order to mitigate the potentially severe consequences of the current TAC and quota system, t. whereby helping to ensure maximum sustainable yield and improas consideration could also be given the economic performance of fleets at a given fishing mortality rateo bringing together bycatches in a combined TAC;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AA
AA. whereas the plans must set a general objective that is achievable in administrative and scientific terms; whereas it should include high and stable yields, something which must be reflected in annual Council decisions regarding fishing opportunities in the light of the latest scientific intelligence; whereas these annual decisions should be strictly confined to the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should as far as possible seek to avoid large fluctuations in this respect;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AD
AD. whereas progress has been made with the multi-annual plan for the Baltic, the Council having agreed to work jointly with the EP on the adoption of fishing mortality targets;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AE
AE. whereas, in the absence of multiannual plans, minimum conservation reference sizes may be modified under discard plans adopted by the Commission in delegated acts on the recommendations of the Member States concerned;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AF
AF. whereas discard plans will play an essential role in view of the changes in fishing techniques and hence fishing mortality and individual spawning biomass, both quantifiable objectives under the multiannual plans, possibly brought about by modifications in minimum conservation sizes; whereas, modification of minimum sizes though delegated acttechnical measures will be used for reducing discards and implementation of the MSY approach; whereas the discard plans wcould mean changing the principal parameters of the multiannual plans from the outsideplay an essential role in supporting the discard ban;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AG
AG. whereas the co-legislators intended these delegated acts to be of a transitional nature, under no circumstances applying for over three years;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Considers it necessary to maintain the co-decision procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins or for those are not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future and believes that co- decision is unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Believes codecision to be unnecessary for measures adopted at regional level or possibly subject to frequent changes;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that rules regarding technical measures should be structured on three co-decisional axes and a fourth regionalisation axis. The first three would comprise a set of common centralised rules, a set of specific rules for the larger sea basins and a number of specific technical regulations, all off which would be adopted by co-decision; Notes that regionalisation would apply to rules applicable at regional level or subject to frequent changesdeleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Considers it necessary to assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio- economic implications for EU fleets of specific regulations based on technical measures, such as those concerning driftnets, incidental cetacean catches, the ban on on-board shark finning or deep- sea fishing;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical operational procedures for each of the three main basins, taking account of the specific nature of each, especially that of the Mediterranean, where Community decisions may have a significant impact on competition between European and third- country fishing fleets;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Maintains that, notwithstanding the discard ban, provisions regarding technical measures in areas such as catch composition must be sufficiently flexible to adapt in real time to progress in the fisheries and more selective fishing techniques;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that the conservation objective of the regulation on technical measures could be achieved more effectively through actions aimed at improving supply and demand management, foc7using to a greater extent with the assistance onf producer organisations, thereby optimizing the results being sought by EU provisions;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that the co-legislators must continue to seek agreement on multiannual plans on the basis of the case-law establishand believes that the multiannual plans should provide the framework for fisheries stock management and be based byon the EU Court of Justice;most recent and therefore accurate scientific and socio- economic evidence
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that multi-annual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific and socio-economic findings and be adapted to the evolution of stocks, as well as providing flexibility for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; notes that these annual decisions should not exceed the strict scope of the allocation of fishing opportunities, and should, as far as possible, seek to avoid large fluctuations thereof;deleted
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Considers that, in order to avoid problems arising from compulsory landings for mixed fisheries, it would be advisable to find ways of regulatusing the fishing effort free of the rigidities of TACs and quotascientifically established ranges of MSY fishing mortality to set TACs and of focusing the attention of management plans on primary target species;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Believes it necessaryReaffirms the need to increase the involvement of stakeholders through the Advisory Councils in the formulation and implementation of multiannual plans and in all decisions concerning regionalisation;
2015/10/20
Committee: PECH