31 Amendments of Antolín SÁNCHEZ PRESEDO related to 2011/2290(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the present communication recalls that the previous CFP failed to achieve its key objectives: numerous stocks are overfished; the economic situation of parts of the EU fleet is fragile despite highthe levels of subsidy; jobs in the fishing sector are unattractive and are being lost; and the situation of many coastal communities depending on fisheries and aquaculture is precarious;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there is a need for rigorous social, economic and environmental data, and that according to some estimates 75 % of the EU’s estimated fish stocks are overexploited, more than 60 % of stocks in European waters are fished beyond the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), and the EU is losing approximately EUR 1.8 billion per year in potential income from its failure to manage fisheries sustainably;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas small-scale fleetsartisanal and small-scale fishing, including shellfishing harvesting and othoseer activities of traditional and extensive aquaculture, and fleets of a larger-scale industrial nature have very different characteristics and problems that cannot be fitted into a uniform model, and thuese aspects need to be treated differently;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas artisanal and small-scale fishing fleets and areas that are heavily dependent on fishingtheir activities require greater socio-economic support under the new CFP;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H bis (new)
Recital H bis (new)
Ha. whereas there is a need for the representatives of the sectors of industrial and small-scale fleets and of aquaculture to be involved in the definition and development of the new CFP;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H ter (new)
Recital H ter (new)
Hb. whereas the Treaty of Lisbon obliges us to ensure coherence in Union policies, including in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy;
Amendment 43 #
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 and aquaculture industry in the Union;
Amendment 47 #
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 and quality, employment, environmental protection, and the maintenance of the culture of newly dynamic fishing and coastal communities;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that incentives should be offered to those who fish sustainably using selective and environment-friendly fishing methods, in order to ensure positivethe generalised use of such fishing practices;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Supports the management of fisheries resources on the basis of MSY, in order to phase out overfishing wherever it occurs, ensure biological security and achieve sustainable stock conservation;
Amendment 76 #
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 caseccording to the final Declaration of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg from 26 August to 4 September 2002, as this would in any case serve to establish a road map and put the vast majority of stocks on the right track; calls on the Commission and 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 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines, however, the difficulties involved in implementing the MSY principle, in particular in the case of mixed fisheries or where scientific data on fish stocks are unavailable or unreliable;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Understands the Commission’s motivations when proposing to implement a discard ban by 2016, and considers that it is right to view such practices as unacceptable in principle, particularly given their harmful impact on numerous essential evaluations relating to sustainable stock management, sound scientific advice, marine ecosystem surveillance and the financialsocio-economic viability of fisheries;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that a gradual ban on discards should only be put in place if accompanied by technical measures to reduce unwanted bycatch and incentives to encourage selective fishing practices, provided the ecosystem balance is maintained; priority should go to avoiding unwanted catches in the first place, rather than finding ways to marketthe relative stability of the principle should be reviewed and priority should go to avoiding unwanted catches rather than managing them; also stresses the importance ofneed for stakeholder engagement and for the careful design of the landing obligation and the subsequent treatment thereof, in order not to shift from unwanted fish in the sea to unwanted fish on land;
Amendment 107 #
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 speciunwanted catches and promote other sustainable fishing methods; underlines the importance of addressing the management of mixed fisheries to this end;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that the existing technology for reducing or eliminating discards is not equally effective for all types of fisheries; in this respect, calls on the Commission to promote partnerships between scientists and fishermen, consider their opinions when drawing up its policies and assist Member States in the development of new fishing techniques;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Expresses its doubts over the proposals relating to the market in bycatches, and stresses that, in case of implementation, adequate safeguards that comply with a predominantly social orientation should be provided in order to avoid the emergence of a parallel market that would paradoxically encourage fishermen to increase their catch;
Amendment 129 #
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 taken into consideration and be actively involved in the gradual implementation of such a ban;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Asks the Commission to assist Member Statdopt sufficient measures into offsetting the diverse socio- economic consequences of adopting a discards ban;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 bis (new)
Paragraph 17 bis (new)
17a. Consumers will be guaranteed a diversified range of fish and aquaculture products of certified quality and origin, and sufficient information thereon;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 ter (new)
Paragraph 17 ter (new)
17b. Recalls the obligation contained in the Treaty of Lisbon to ensure coherence of the Union’s policies, including in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Believes that the reliability and availability of data must be one of the highest priorities of the reform; is concerned at the lack of reliable and available scientific data as well as socio- economic impact evaluations needed for sound scientific advice;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to make proposals on effective quality data collection for scientists and for it to be harmonised at the European Union level; urges it, at the same time, to establish a framework, which takes into account the socio-economic impact, for decision- making in data-deficient situations and to come up with scientific models on which to base multi-speciesfic fisheries management;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the importance of involving fishermen, as well as all stakeholders, alongside scientists in contributing to the collection and analysis of socio-economic and environmental information and the active development of research partnerships;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes 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 overcapacity to be reduced, which is commendable; emphasises, however, that adequate safeguards would need to be introduced in order to protect small-scale and artisanal coastal fishing (including harvesting shellfish and other traditional and extensive aquaculture activities as well as the natural cultivation of molluscs in coastal waters), 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 191 #
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 a Member State should be exempted from the obligation to introduce TFCs if it achieves the necessary overcapacity reduction without their use; a census system should be maintained in such a way that the transferability of quotas is limited to vessels within the same census, which means the accumulation of fishing rights should be limited, and the historicity of the vessels in the fishery, as well as the socio- economic aspects thereof, must be taken into account when distributing individual fishing concessions;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Considers that the economic viability of the fisheries sector is affected by the recent rise in oil prices; calls on the Commission to come up with suitable measures to improve fuel efficiency in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, to alleviate the difficult economic situation in which European fishermen and fish farmers find themselves, and to propose in this respect an action plan for coastal regions and islands;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Believes that the reform of the CFP may, in the short term, lead to job losses, especially in the catching sector, thus affecting the growth of coastal communities and islands; stresses, in this respect, that there is a need for accompanying socio-economic measures, including professional cooperation and a plan for jobs, in order to make the sector more attractive to young people and provide incentives to enter the sector; calls on the Commission to examine and promote cooperation with the European Investment Bank in order to leverage investment in the sector;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 bis (new)
Paragraph 30 bis (new)
30a. Considers it necessary to promote the development of innovations and activities related to the field of fisheries, which can offset the loss of jobs due to the adjustments arising from the reform of the CFP; urges the Commission to develop specific programmes dedicated to the development of fishing tourism and other areas of economic development linked to the sea and fishing activity;
Amendment 243 #
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 and aquaculture industry, and especially in the case of the Union’s coastal areas and outermost regions; supports the idea of establishing regionalisation 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 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Believes, more generally, that the role of the RACs should be strengthened; in this respect, urges the Commission to table a new proposal aimed at strengthening the participation of stakeholders and artisanal and small- scale fisheries, thus leading to genuine regionalisation in the CFP; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s proposal to set up a Black Sea Advisory Council; the RACs must advise the Parliament and the Council on the adoption of multi-annual plans, and involve scientists in the adoption of their decisions;