25 Amendments of Ian HUDGHTON related to 2011/2290(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas, in addition to Parliament gaining new powers, the new Treaty regime by virtue of Article 2(1) TFEU permits the EU to empower the Member States to legislate in areas of exclusive competence, such as the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the present communication recalls that the previous CFP failed to achieve its key objectives: many stocks are overfished; the economic situation of parts of the EU fleet is fragile despite high levels of subsidy; jobs in the fishing sector are unattractive; and the situation of many coastal communities depending on fisheries is precarious;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas the failure of the CFP to achieve its objectives after a period of 30 years suggests that the top-down centralised approach for managing fisheries is not appropriate given the hugely diverse nature of the EU's waters, fisheries and fishing cultures;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas nevertheless some EU fisheries are accredited as being sustainable showing that cooperation between the governing authorities, the fishing industry and other stakeholders can bring about satisfactory results;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas small-scale fleets and those of a larger-scale industrial nature have very different characteristics, and probs indeed do fleets in different parts of the EU regardlemss thatof vessel size; accordingly appropriate management instruments cannot be fitted into a uniform model, and thus different fleets need to be treated differently;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the common fisheries policy (wild fisheries and aquaculture sector) needs a thorough and ambitious reform if the EU is to lay the foundations of a socio-economically viable and environmentally sustainable fisheries industry in the Unionall parts of the Union where fishing activities have always taken place;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that the EU's wild fisheries and aquaculture sector, if properly managed, could make a greater contribution to European society's needs, in terms of food security, employment, and the maintenance of dynamic and varied fishing and coastal communities;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recognises that fishing has provided employment for numerous often economically fragile communities around the coasts of Europe for many generations; considers that all these communities, regardless of size, deserve protection under European fisheries policy and that the historic link between communities and the waters they have historically fished must be maintained;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that incentives should be offered to those who fish sustainably using environment-friendly fishing methods, in order to ensure positive use of such fishing practices; believes that the development of both the environment-friendly fishing methods and the incentives to be offered should be done at a level close to the stakeholders and with the cooperation of fishermen and other interested bodies;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is convinced that the reform of the CFP must establish the right instruments to support an ecosystem-based fisheries management; believes, therefore, that the multiannual management plans must take account of such an ecosystemic approach; considers however that any attempt to establish the management instruments by means of central diktat will doom the CFP to another decade of failure and believes therefore that real management powers must be devolved to the Member States, encouraged to cooperate on a regional base;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that the objective of achieving MSY based on fishing mortality (FMSY) should be established immediately, as this will in any case put the vast majority of stocks on the right track; calls on the Commission andto empower the Member States to implement this objective in an operational manner, based on sound scientific data and taking account of the socio-economic consequences;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the need for more scientific research to develop tackle and fishing techniques in such a way as to avoid bycatches of non-targeted species and promote other sustainable fishing methods; underlines the importance of addressing the management of mixed fisheries to this end; considers that the fishing industry itself must play a key role in developing sustainable fishing methods and therefore believes that policymakers should seek to cooperate at all stages with the industry;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes the difficulty of applying such a measure in the Mediterranean as well as other EU waters, given the existence of mixed fisheries, specific fishing practices and specific climatic and geological conditions; believes that further consultations are needed to tackle the difficulties linked to establishing the infrastructure for collecting and processing the bycatch as proposed by the Commission; calls for measures to reduce the catch of juveniles and discourage the market in juveniles;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that the discard ban should be based on a step-by-step introduction by fishery, to make it easier for the sector to adapt; stresses that the producers' organisations should be actively involved in the gradual implementation of such a ban; believes that a science led approach will prove more effective than a simple blanket discard ban;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes with concern that the proposal to introduce ‘Transferable Fishing Concessions’ (TFCs), contained in the basic regulation, raises concerns regarding the concentration and creation of monopolies; stresses that in a number of countries transferable fishing rights have allowed fishing capacity to be reduced, which is commendable; emphasises, however, that adequate safeguards would need to be introduced in order to protect small-scale and coastal fishing, which is the most economically endangered part of the industry but also that providing most of the jobs and economic activity in coastal regions;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Believes that the decision as to whether to introduce TFCs should remain a Member State competence, allowing them to use management instruments most appropriate to their fisheries;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22 b. Believes that respecting and protecting historic fishing rights gives fishing communities a long-term incentive to conserve stocks given that they will be assured the future benefits of such stock conservation; believes that the Commission proposal to allow TFCs to be fully tradeable at an international level will fundamentally undermine those historic rights;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Believes that such a measure should offer priority access to those who fish in a socially and environmentally responsible way; believes that TFCs should not be the only measure proposed for reducing overcapacity, and that athe Member State s should be exempted from the obligation to introduce TFCs if it achieves the necessaryowered to make arrangements most appropriate to their circumstances to bring about capacity reduction without their usehere necessary;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that prior to the mandatory introduction of TFCs the CommissionMember States introducing appropriate measures to bring about any necessary capacity reduction they should undertake fleet assessments in order to obtain credible results vis-à-vis the precise situation of overcapacity at EUnational, regional and fishery level, thus making it possible to propose appropriate and targeted instruments for its reduction; the Commission could be informed of the results of these fleet assessments;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5
Subheading 5
III - Regionalisation and decentralisation
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Shares the view expressed in the Commission proposal regarding the need for adaptation and specific measures, based on the disparate realities of the European fishing industry, and especially in the case of the Union's coastal areas and outermost regions; supports the idea of to establishing regionalisation and decentralisation as one of the main instruments of this new governance, in order to respond adequately to the needs of each sea basin and incentivise adherence to rules adopted at European level;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31 a. Believes that the development of appropriate technical measures to eliminate discards, the promotion of sustainable fishing, the bringing about of fleet capacity reduction where necessary and, indeed, the general success of the reformed CFP will only be ensured if decisions are taken at an appropriate level and in cooperation with the relevant stakeholders; considers therefore regionalisation and decentralisation not to be a mere instrument alongside technical measures etc. but to be a pre- requisite to these other instruments succeeding in their aims;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 b (new)
Paragraph 31 b (new)
31 b. Notes that, whilst the protection of marine biological resources under the CFP is an exclusive of the EU, Article 2(1) TFEU permits Member States to be empowered to exercise this competence; considers that the Commission should not use the fact that fisheries is generally an exclusive competence to seek to retain control and power at the centre but rather believes that Article 2(1) can be used to ensure that decisions are taken at an appropriate level;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Expresses doubts as to the added value likely to be attained by the creation of an aquaculture Advisory Council given the huge variety in the EU's aquaculture sector and the fact that many aspects of aquaculture regulation are and should remain a Member State competence;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Stresses that an ambitious and real reform of the CFP can only be successful if sufficient financial means are available for the next ten years, in order to support all the reform measures and tackle the socio- economic problems that may occur; rejects any calls from Member States to seek to reduce EU funds to fisheries and aquaculture;