24 Amendments of Isabella LÖVIN related to 2009/2238(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas this drop is a result of both declining fish stocks in EU waters and the measures (rightly) put in place to limit fishing and ensure sustainable management of fish stocks under the CFPboth within the EU and wherever EU fisheries are conducted by virtue of Fisheries Partnership Agreements,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas unselective fishing and high levels of discards in some fisheries that export to the EU market mean that significant amounts of fish that would be suitable for human consumption is wasted,
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas this ‘open-door’ policy one policy to open up EU markets for fishery and aquaculture imports into the EU market is likely to continue, both at multilateral level, in the context of WTO negotiations, especially the Doha Round talks on non-agricultural market access (NAMA), and in the context of a raft of preferential talks currently under way with all kinds of trading partners in Asia, Latin America, North America and the Mediterranean basin and with various groups in the ACP countries,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. whereas the EU's requirement for coherence between its development policy objectives (eliminating poverty, development of sustainable local fisheries) and its trade policy implies that developing countries should be encouraged to export fisheries products with a greater added value, provided that the fish comes from well-managed and sustainable fisheries and meets the necessary sanitary conditions,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that EU fishery and aquaculture production falls well short of the needs of the processing industry and growing consumer demand, and will continue to do so; acknowledges, therefore, that imports are necessary ande need to promote responsible consumption, based upon quality and sustainability rather than quantity, the need to reinforce fisheries management to promote stock recovery and the fact that imports will continue to play an important role in supplying the EU market;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recognises that there is an upper limit on the amount of fish that can be caught on a sustainable basis, either for human consumption or for industrial purposes, which means that supplies of fish to the EU market cannot increase ad infinitum;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises, however, the overriding need to ensure that the EU retains environmentally sustainable and economically viable fishery and aquaculture sectors – including small-scale operations – that are spread harmoniously along its coastline, help to preserve the cultural identity of the regions concerned, provide jobs at all stages of production, and supply safe, good-quality food, which implies that fishers receive a fair price for their product;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that reasonable customs protection which can be adjusted either on the basis of agreements or autonomously, depending on the preferences the EU wishes to offer or trade with particular countries – especially developing countries – and on the needs of our processing industryseafood market, is and should continue to be an important and legitimate instrument enabling the authorities to regulate imports;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Agrees that the EU has the right to establish criteria for importing fishery products relating to sanitary conditions and IUU fishing, but insists that these criteria must not be abused and become non-tariff barriers to legitimate products from well-managed fisheries;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Cannot, therefore, accept the idea – promoted through the commercial policy currently being pursued – that all tariff protection in the fishery and aquaculture production sector must eventually be abolished, and that European producers (fishermen, fish farmers and processors) have no other choice than to resign themselves to this situatsks the Commission to ensure that any adjustment of customs protections is linked to trading partners´ alignment with the high health, consumer protection, social as well as environmental standards upheld in the European Union;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Takes the view that, like agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture are strategic sectors with multiple functions, which rely on thdepend on the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources and include extremely vulnerable segments that do not lend themselves to a purely free- trade approach based on the free play of the comparative advantages;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for responsibility for heading up trade talks on fishery and aquaculture products to be transferred from the Trade Commissioner to the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, to act in close cooperation with the Commissioner for Development in order to ensure policy coherence for development;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Warns against concluding in the WTO any agreement on fisheries sector subsidies that would deny the EU the possibility of granting its producers certain types of support, without imposing the same constraints on other countries that are among its main suppliersInsists that any agreement in the Doha round on fisheries sector subsidies must be based on capacity management plans consistent with the FAO IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity and prohibit any subsidies that lead to an increase in fishing capacity;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Emphasises that the EU needs to retain control over the trade preferences that it grants to certain partners by insisting on the application of strict rules of origin based on the concept of ‘wholly obtained’ products; urges caution, in respect of raw products, with regard to granting any derogations from the traditional criteria for determining vessels’ nationality, and demands that any new requconsiders, however, that fish that is caught in the waters of a third country should be considered as originating from that country regardlests for derogations in respect of processed products be rejected; considers that the ‘no-drawback’ rule should be applied systematically and origin cumulation possibilities should be limitedof the flag of the vessel that caught it, recognizing the need for effective surveillance and traceability programmes to prevent abuse;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Demands that all the trade preferences granted by the EU in respect of fishery and aquaculture products be made strictly conditional upon the fulfilment of stringent environmental and social requirements; further demands that provisions to this effect in agreements concluded should include credible mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the undertakings given and for suspending the preferences, or simply withdrawing them, if the undertakings are breached; in the case of developing countries, insists that appropriately designed and funded programmes for financial and/or technical support be put in place to assist the country meet the environmental and social requirements;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Urges the utmost caution with regard to recognising the requirements in force in certain non-EU countries as equivalent to those of the EU for the purposes of applying the above-mentioned legislation and in relation to approving lists of countries and establishments authorised to export fishery and aquaculture products to the EU; considers that DG SANCO should be able to remove individual vessels or processing plants from such approved lists where they fail to meet minimum standards;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Advocates an extremely vigilant approach to products from new, particularly intensive, types of aquaculture practised in certain regions of the world and calls for a critical study of the productivity-boosting techniques and procedures used in the plants in question and of their possible health implications as well as their local social and environmental impact;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Demands that the checks carried out at all levels – and especially in the context of effectively harmonized and transparent border controls – should be of a thoroughness and regularity commensurate with the risks inherent in the products concerned, particularly with regard to their nature and provenance; asks the Member States to make available all the financial and human resources required for that purpose;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Emphasises that it is absolutely essential for the new mechanisms introduced under the revision to address the reality of fierce competition from importslow- cost imports resulting from practices that are damaging to the environment or equivalent to a form of social dumping, and to endeavour, nonetheless, to ensure that EU production can be marketed normally and sufficiently profitably;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Expresses its conviction that European consumers would often make different choices if they were better informed about the true nature of products on sale, their detailed geographical origins and the conditions under which they were produc, the status of the stock from which the wild fish originates, the flag State of the catching vessel or country of origin of the aquaculture establishment and the conditions under which they were produced, including the vessel gear type; considers that all seafood products should be so labelled;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Emphasises the urgent need to introduce stringent and transparent criteria for certifying and independently verifying the quality and traceability of European fishery and aquaculture products and to promote the introduction, as soon as possible, of specific EU ecolabelling for such products in order to put an end to the uncontrolled proliferation of private certification systelegislation to ensure that the private labels currently on the market are regularly inspected, and the results published, so that consumers can rely on the credibility of their claims;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Sees a determined policy of supporting and developing sustainable aquaculture, with a reduced environmental impact, in the EU as one of the key aspects of a strategy to reduce dependence on fishery and aquaculture imports, stimulate economic activity in the EU and offer a more plentiful and varied supply in response to the rapidly rising demand;