7 Amendments of Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY related to 2012/2009(DEC)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Criticises the Commission for not having effectively defined or quantified ‘fishing overcapacity’ in a way that would allow for alignment ofNotes that although there is no official definition of overcapacity, declined catches and lost jobs caused by overfished fish stocks demonstrates a de facto overcapacity; therefore calls on the Commission to define overcapacity and consider more relevant and robust measures to facilitate actions to balance fishing capacity towith fishing opportunities;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is concerned that fleet capacity ceilings, as a measure to restrict the size of the fishing fleet, have become irrelevant as the actual fleet size is well under the ceilings and could be even 200 000 tonnes bigger, while still complying with the rules; stresses that, at the same time, due to technological advances, fishing capacity of the fleets has increased with an average of 3 % per year during the last decade;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that it is for all responsible actors in the Member States - notably the fishermen themselves - to adequately define how to measure ‘capacity’ and ‘overcapacity’alls on the Commission to set effective fishing fleet capacity ceilings; notes that the CFP measures vessel capacity in terms of power (kilowatt) and size (gross tonnage) and that, however, these measures do not take into account technological progress in fishing methods, which complicates setting appropriate targets for its reduction; notes that for reasons of coherence the Commission wants to maintain these static parameters until the end of 2015;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Calls on the Commission to enforce Member States’ obligation to correctly update their fleet register, and to establish the obligation to report on their efforts to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. NoteConsiders that the Commission has not addressed the issue of clear rules for the treatment of fishing rights when fishing vessels are scrapped with public aid and has not defined clear and effective selection criteria for fishing vessel decommissioning schemesscrapping schemes have partially been badly implemented, with examples of tax payers' money used for scrapping of already inactive vessels or even rebuilding new vessels; notes, however, that some Member States have had scrapping schemes that have fulfilled their purpose; stresses, therefore, the need of strict safeguards when using scrapping schemes, as a way of reducing overcapacity in order to avoid abuse;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets that investment on board fishing vessels funded byConsiders that the available data on the actual capacity of the European Ffisheries Fund (EFF) could increase the ability of individual vessels to catch fish; considers that the interpretative note the Commission has prepared and sent to Member States following the Court's Special Report on the ability of the vessels to catch fish where it called for national authorities to enforce stricter checks before deciding on the funding of projects of investments on board is insufficienting fleet are not reliable, because technological development has not been taken into account and Member States have failed to accurately report data on fleet capacities;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers, moreover, that in the light of the Court's criticism it becomes clear that the EFF and CFP provide no value added, further disrupt the fishing industry in Europe and should therefore be discontinued in order to avoid further waste of taxpayers‘ moneyshould be radically reformed;