12 Amendments of Inés AYALA SENDER related to 2012/2009(DEC)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes note that, although the reduction of fishing overcapacity has been a recurrent theme in previous reforms of the CFP and has been addressed in the Court's Special Reports No 3/1993 and No 7/2007, the expensive measures taken to date to reduce fishing overcapacity by adapting the fishing fleet to fishing resocted results have not been obtained; considers it necessary, consequently, to take a fresh approach, or to improve the application and control of the measurces have been unsuccessfulcurrently in force;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Criticises the Commission for not having effectivelyNotes that "fishing overcapacity" has not been defined orand quantified "fishing overcapacity" in a way that would allow for alignment ofsince 1995, and this has prevented the necessary decisions from being taken to match fishing capacity to fishing opportunities;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is concernedNotes 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 no longer have a significant impact in terms of adapting capacity to available fishing opportunities, given that the actual fleet size could be even 200 000 tonnes bigger, while still complying with the rules;
Amendment 12 #
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”Is aware of the difficulties involved in calculating fishing overcapacity, given the complexity of the factors that must be taken into account (biological, scientific, economic and social, inter alia); 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 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes that, in terms of reducing fishing capacity, the Commission's new proposal for the CFP is founded on a new, market-based approach (schemes for granting transferable fishing rights), since the Commission has reached the conclusion that these schemes have a positive role to play in reducing fishing overcapacity;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that the Commission has not addressed the issue of clearExpresses its concern at the shortcomings encountered in the rules for the treatment of fishing rights when fishing vessels are scrapped with public aid, and has notat the failure to defined clear and effective selection criteria for fishselecting vessel decommissioning schemes;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. RegretNotes that some investment on board fishing vessels funded by the European Fisheries 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 wh, even though the EFF Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006) prevents any aid that would allow fleet capacity to be increased; in this context, consideres it called for national authorities to enforce stricter checks before deciding on the funding of projects of investments on board is insufficiento be a positive initiative that the Commission has provided the Member States with guidelines clarifying what types of investments on board may be covered by public aid and what types may not;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that whereas paragraph 36 of the Special Report says that by the end of 2010, implementation of the EFF in terms of expenditure certified by Member States amounted to EUR 645 million, or 15 % of the amount available from 2007 to 2013, that most of this amount was declared in 2010 and that EUR 292 million was still not paid by the Commission as at 31 December 2010, the Commission underlines that the pace of absorption of the EFF is now picking up andowing to the Council's late adoption of the EFF Regulation and the complexity involved in the initial setting-up of management and control systems by the Member States; notes that certified interim payments sent by Member States by the end of December 2011 amounted to 28% (EUR 1 188 million) of the overall EFF allocation and welcomes the fact that the pace of absorption of the EFF is now picking up;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 2
Paragraph 12 – indent 2
– it should be established whether or not the aid scheme for modernising vessels should be reconsidered and the rolvised and what use should be made of fishing right transfer schemes clarified;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 12 – indent 2 a (new)
– clear selection rules should be established for fishing vessel decommissioning schemes;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 4
Paragraph 12 – indent 4
– the fleet register should be correctly updated, and Member State reports should contain the required information and be of suitable quality;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13