12 Amendments of Carlos ITURGAIZ related to 2017/2052(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that a substantial and accessible fisheries fund is necessary in order to implement the common fisheries policy (CFP), to ensure the sustainability of European aquaculture and fisheries, including through implementation of the discard ban and landing obligation and achieving the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) objective, and to help the sector carry out the necessary restructuring process; rejects any attempt to dispense with a specific fund for the fisheries sector in view of the socioeconomic importance of this activity in the coastal regions of the European Union (EU);
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the CFP is an exclusive EU competence and that the financial funds made available to the EU for this policy should therefore be sufficient in order achieve the demanding goals laid down in the Basic Regulation; recalls, however, that the current European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) accounts for only 0.6 % of the total 2014- 2020 MFF; emphasises that EMFF financial funds should be kept at least at the same level in view of the socioeconomic importance of this activity in the coastal regions of the European Union (EU);
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that Brexit must not be used as an excuse to reduce future funding; the EU should find a way to ensure that a possible decline in the post-2020 MFF does not automatically translate into lower allocations to the EMFF, in view of the already diminished budget allocated to the fisheries sector in the EU;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the level of implementation of the 2014-2020 EMFF three years after its adoption on 15 May 2014 remains unsatisfactory, as by September 2017 only 1.4 % of the EUR 6.4 billion fund had been used; hopes that the level of implementation of the EMFF and other EU structural and investment programmes will eventually improve; highlights that the low level of implementation is largely due to the delay in adopting the rules for this European fund following the reform of the CFP and, in many cases, the lack of clarity in the administrative procedures regarding the aid measures under the fund, for which reason it advocates greater precision and simplification;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the opinion that steps need to be taken in order to ensure that the post- 2020 EU fisheries fund is implemented in a swifter and more flexible manner, without the delays that continue to plague the 2014-2020 EMFFin order to try to avoid a repetition of the current situation;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that, even though the EU remains a net seafood importer, European fisheries continue to be a very important source of healthy food for the European market; underlines that the EU should continue to prevent substandard producstrengthen and harmonise controls and inspections of third country imports to prevent products that do not meet the legal requirements from entering the EU market;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that European added value in fisheries management has to date been largely associated with a reduction in the capacity of fishing fleets; is of the opinion that in the post-2020 MFF a balance between the fisheries resources available and fleet capacity will have to be taken into account; highlights, however, that other elements with a non-quantifiable added value should be considered as well, such as the role the fishing sector plays in communities highly dependent on this activity in terms of employment and local growth; underlines, therefore, that fisheries must remain independenan independent fisheries fund must continue to exist in order to support these communities;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses the need to maintain the financing structure for the two collective support instruments for the fisheries sector, local action groups and producer organisations in the fisheries sector, in view of the fact that they constitute core elements for the development of fisheries in regions that depend on this activity;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Considers that the EMFF should continue to prioritise financial support to coastal and artisanal fisheries given the socioeconomic role they play in regions that are hihgly dependent on fisheries, but without jeopardising the financial support to other fleets necessary for the supply of healthy foodstuffs to EU markets;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Considers it necessary, with a view to the upcoming reform of the MFF, to launch a debate on the possible funding of measures to modernise certain fleets that are obsolete and that pose safety risks at sea, as is the case with some fleets in the outermost regions, provided this does not lead to an increase in fishing capacity;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Paragraph 9 d (new)
9d. Considers it very important to enhance financial support for innovation and technological development to help meet the objectives of the CFP, taking into account the need to improve the selectivity of fishing gear, notably in the context of the landing obligation and the fulfilment of the MSY;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Welcomes the desire to boost the aquaculture sector under the European strategy for the ‘blue economy’ – to which 20 % of the EMFF is allocated – but regrets the administrative obstacles to the development of aquaculture and, hence, calls for thought to be given to ways of reducing red tape in the Member States;