24 Amendments of Alain CADEC related to 2011/2290(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WBelcomieves the communication onat the reformed Common Fisheries Policy, which, taking an even-handed approach aimed at mutual reinforcement, must focus on the environmental, social, economic and cultural pillars in order to encourage sustainable development compatible with the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth called for by Europe 2020; maintains that the reformed policy must be coordinated more closely with other European policies and that the EU’s external actionfuture international sustainable fisheries agreements must be consistent with it;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the present communication recalls that the previous CFP failed to achieve its key objectives: certain stocks are overfished; the economic situation of parts of the EU fleet is fragile despite high levels of subsidy; jobs there are still few young people entering the fishing sector are unattractive; and the situation of many coastal communities depending on fisheries is precarious;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that the rRegionsal Advisory Councils (RACs) must assume greater responsibility in fisheries management, without detracting from the principles of subsidiarity and regionalisation, and encourage dialogue among the various entities involved in the sector, both upstream and downstream, by providing incentives and support to establish international clusterimplementing the Common Fisheries Policy; proposes that these RACs must be consulted upstream by the Commission within the framework of implementing the Common Fisheries Policy and the management plans;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, according to the European Commission, 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 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points to the importance of the multifunctionality of fisheries for coastal regions; stresses the need for specific measures for certain regions, such as the outermost regions, for example support for small- scale fishing fleets and for the promotion of extensive and sustainable aquaculture; advocates support measures to restructure the labour market, support measures for training and retraining,for vocational training, young people's access to careers in fishing, the renewal and modernisation of fishing vessels and incentives for producer and interbranch organisations;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Firmly rejects the Commission’s proposal to establish transferable fishing concessions because this scheme would lead to fishing rights being concentrated in the hands of a small number of operators and thus to the disappearance of many small-scale fishing industries;
Amendment 63 #
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; believes that it is imperative to put an end to the institutional impasse of these multiannual management plans and that the ordinary legislative procedure should be applied;
Amendment 77 #
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 and the Member States to implement this objective in an operational manner with the aid of a realistic calendar for the sector, based on sound scientific data and taking account of the socio-economic consequences of this measure into account;
Amendment 81 #
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; consequently requests an increase in the sums allocated to scientific research and data collection for the implementation of a sustainable fishing policy;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. UnderstandsConsiders that the Commission’s motivations when proposing to implement a discard ban by 2016, and considers that it is right to view such practicediscards 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 financial viability of fisheries; is therefore in favour of a policy which will significantly reduce the number of discards;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that a ban onsignificant reduction in the number of discards should only be put in place if accompanied by technical measures to reduce unwanted bycatch and incentives to encourage selective fishing practices, providedwhile maintaining the ecosystem balance is maintained; priority should go to avoiding unwanted catches in the first place, rather than finding ways to market them; is concerned about the emergence of a parallel discards market which would constitute a danger for the ecosystem and the European fishing sector; also stresses the importance of stakeholder engagement and careful design of the landing obligation, in order not to shift from unwanted fish in the sea to unwanted fish on land;
Amendment 111 #
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 ofreducing discards is not as easy to implement for multispecies fisheries as it is for single-species fisheries; in this respect, calls on the Commission to promote partnerships between scientists and fishermen and assist Member States in the development of new fishing techniques;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider, before implementing this measure, the option of establishing ‘pilot projects’ before 2015 in order to identify technical difficulties, such as practical problems related to landing all discards, implementing controls, and management of socio- economic consequence, allowing the development and creation of selective gear to enable a significant reduction in the number of discards, in the hope that the results could be used to help formulate measures for management plans;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes the difficulty of applying such a measurea significant reduction in the number of discards in the Mediterranean, 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 122 #
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 should be provided in order to avoidopposition to the market in bycatches, which would lead to the emergence of a parallel market that would paradoxically encourage fishermen to increase their catch;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that the discard bansignificant reduction in the number of discards 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 bareduction;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Asks the Commission to assist Member States in offsetting the diverse socio- economic consequences of adopting a significant reduction in the number of discards ban;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that the introduction of such a measurea significant reduction in the number of discards would imply an in-depth reform of the control and enforcement system; asks the Commission to assist Member States in this respect, in order to ensure that enforcement applies across the board in a uniform manner; believes that the Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) should have increased powers to ensure a fair system of rules and sanctions;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes thatRejects the proposal to introduce ‘Transferable Fishing Concessions’ (TFCs), contained in the basic regulation, which raises concerns regarding their concentration and the creation of monopolies; stresses that in a number ofthe safeguards 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 toavene the principle of free enterprise and do not allow the protection of 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 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Believes that such a measurepriority access should be offer priority accessed to those who fish in a socially and environmentally responsible way; believes that TFCs should not be the only measure proposed for reducing overcapacthe principle of subsidiarity, and that a Member State should be exempted from the obligation to introduce TFCs if it achieves the necessary capacity reductionlready allows the Member States to introduce a system of transferable fishing concessions in their national legislation if they so wish; believes that the inclusion of TFCs in the basic regulation is therefore useless; recalls that the capacity reduction of certain fisheries can be achieved without their use;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that prior to the mandatory introduction of TFCs the Commission should undertake fleet assessments in order to obtain credible results vis-à-vis the precise situation of overcapacity at EU level, thus making it possible to propose appropriate and targeted instruments for its reduction if necessary;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Believes strongly that the reformed CFP must not be removed from the socio- economic context in which it exists; considers that the fisheries and aquaculture sectors must be seen as important direct and indirect sources of job creation in our maritime regions, which underpin their economy as a whole, while also contributing to food safety in the EU;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a ‘Blue Growth initiative on sustainable growth from the oceans, seas and coasts’; considers that greater professional mobility in the sector, the possibility (subject to strict conditions) of renewing and modernising the fishing fleet, diversification of jobs, and identification of tools making it possible to match skills, qualifications and education programmes to the needs of the sector are important for the growth of the maritime, fisheries and aquaculture industries;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Believes that as far as regionalisation is concerned, the key response is good governance, which means a bottom-up approach; stresses that clear and simple rules must be established at the appropriate level, thus increasing compliance; also strongly believes that the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) promote dialogue and cooperation between stakeholders and should contribute actively to the establishing of Long Term Management Plans; recalls the role of the co-legislators in adopting these plans;