Activities of Carmen FRAGA ESTÉVEZ related to 2011/2291(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on reporting obligations under Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy PDF (184 KB) DOC (95 KB)
Amendments (12)
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to provide for the establishment of long-term management plans for all EU fisheries; highlights the possibility of grouping fisheries according to geographical fishing regions whereby the specificities of the different European seas should be taken into account and a separate regime should apply tos well as the situation of small-scale coastal fisheries; believes that there should be a possibility for investments in new landing sites and start-up packages in order to secure a new generation of fishermen entering into small-scale fisherie in the different areas in order to align management measures as closely as possible to the real situations facing the different fleets;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that as part of the objective of guaranteeing sustainability, the policies considered should be aimed at the future of the fishing sector and, consequently, at facilitating the entry of new generations of fishermen;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission in the future to use the ecosystem approach as a basis for all long-term management plans (LTMPs), with clearly defined objectives and harvest control rules playing a pivotal role in each plan, whereby the latter is to; considers that the management plans should be the basis of the future CFP and be provided with clearly defined objectives that lay down rules for determining annual fishing effort, taking into account the difference between the current stock size and structure of the fishery and the target stock objective, the criteria for discards and harvest control; urges the Council in this regard to follow the objectives of the LTMPs without exception;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the direct link between discards, unwanted by-catch and overfishing, and the need to develop an efficient no-discards policy at EU level whereby the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) should have greater powers to ensure a fair system of rules and sanctions, i.e. the principle of equal treatment; argues that a discard ban should take a realistic approach and therefore be gradual, form part of the different management plans and be fishery-based and not relate to different fish stocks; stresses that selectived fishing gear and other devices which reduce or eliminate by-catches of non-targeted species, as well as other sustainable fishing methods, should be promoted; underlines the importance of addressing the management of mixed fisheries to this endat when any management system is established in the European Union it is indispensable to consider the importance of mixed fisheries in Community waters, which will involve necessary adjustments and specific treatments depending on the areas;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Urges the Commission to address immediately the issue of the lack of reliable and available data necessary for sound scientific advice; calls on the Commission to establish a system whereby Member States which do not fulfil their data collection and transmission obligations are sanctioned; stressehighlights the contradiction between the Commission’s complaints regarding the lack of data and the small budget allocated to obtain these, and thus insists that adequate financial means have to be allocated to relevant scientific research in the Member States; calls on the Commission to establish a system whereby Member States which do not fulfil their data collection and transmission obligations are sanctioned; urges the Commission at the same time to set up a framework for decision-making in data- poor situations, both regarding management plans and TACs and quota decisions;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to establish a definition of overcapacity at EU level accommodating regional definitions, where local specificities are taken into account; further calls on the Commission to redefine fishing capacity in such a way that both the vessel’s fishing capacity and its actual fishing effort are taken as a basis; stresses moreover the necessity to define small- scale fisheries in order to dissociate them from industrial fisheriesadapt this to the objectives of the new CFP;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines that the TFC system cannot be considered as the only measure to tackle overfishing and overcapacity but that it should be available as one of the various additionalcomplementary management measures available to a Member State whereby the Commission, together with the two co- legislators, is to set the broader framework, control and monitor national application, and report to the legislators periodically on the results of this system; stresses that selective fishing gea, in this respect, that the design of a proper rand otherge of technical measures, such as closure of specific zones or the exclusion of certain fishing activities, should be further promoted as complementary measures; that promote selective fishing gear or the closure of specific zones, inter alia, is fundamental for the proper functioning of any fisheries management system.
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Underlines the need for financial supporat the future EMFF must con a short-term basis for fishermen who are facing the negative consequences of the measures taken, in order tosider the socio- economic impact of the measures aimed at reduceing overcapacity and adjusting the size of the fishing fleets in line with the size of fishing opportunities and long- term sustainability, and consequently provide for adequate financial assistance to mitigate this impact;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises the need for clear deadlines for fleet reductions and pace targets, andto make progress as soon as possible towards fleet adjustments using the resources available, whereby priority should be given to systems encouraging fleets to adjust themselves to the realities of their fisheries, as foreseen in the Commission’s proposal for the new CFP; if, in spite of the new possibilities in the management system to be introduced, there are Member States that do not show signs of a willingness to deal properly with their excess fleets, urges the Commission to provide for a scheme of measures to sanction Member States which do not fulfil their respective obligations within the set timelines and to further develop thea concept of conditionality in the context of access to fishing resources and remuneration which rewardsthat is aimed at more sustainable fishing;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission’s proposal to maintain the authorisation for specific fishing restrictions until 31 December 2022 and; agrees with the Commission that modifying currentthe arrangements regarding the 12-mile access regime might disrupt the current balance that has developed since the introduction of theis special regime; points out, on the other hand, that the objectives of the 12- mile access regime are completely different from those pursued by the introduction of other restrictions;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Believes that, for the time being, the special access regime for small-scale fisheries in the 12 nautical mile zone should be retained;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that conservation areas, such as the Shetland Box, should remain an important conservation tool to protect biologically sensitive areas; accordingly expects the Commission to address these issues in the envisaged review of the relevant technical measures framework which would allow for a coherent legal regime;in future the classification of restricted fishing areas, as may be the case with the Shetland Box, should be broadly backed by scientific criterion that demonstrate the rigour of their classification as areas that are biologically sensitive, especially if it is claimed that such restrictions form part of the regulatory framework of the Common Fisheries Policy through its basic Regulation.