15 Amendments of Carl HAGLUND related to 2011/2292(INI)
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas management models based on transferable fishing rights or concessions comprise real risks for the subsistence of certain sectors of inshore and artisanal cannot be considered as the only measure to tackle overfishing, as demonstrated by the experience in some countriesnd overcapacity;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the absence of reliable scientific data remains a serious problem when seeking to achieve sustainable management of most fish stocks;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas its structural weaknesses mean small-scale fishing is more exposed to certain types of external shock (such as the rapid increase in fuel prices) and to rapid changes in the availability of resources than the elements of the fleet considered more competitive; the rapidly growing populations of certain seabirds, that are invasive species in a particular region, and seals put further pressure on the depleted fishery resources in some regions of the EU;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) should fully take into account the specific problems and needs of small-scale fishing, both in coastal and inland areas;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that local management, that is based on scientific knowledge and that involves the sector in setting out and implementing policy, is the management type that best meets the needs of small- scale fishing involving the sector in setting out and implementing policy, based on scientific knowledge and within the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy, could have a more important role in managing the small-scale fishing; considers that Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) should play a much greater role in the future Common Fisheries Policy;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Rejects the mandatory implementation of TFCs; argues that the decision on whether or not to adopt TFCs and on which sectors of the fleet to include in this scheme should be left to the Member Statescognises the Commission's proposal to introduce a system of individually transferable fishing concessions (TFCs), subject to strict safeguards, providing a special regime for small-scale and coastal fisheries as well as preferential treatment for ecologically-friendly fishing vessels, and addressing the issue of rights concentration and the possibility of revoking fishing concessions; 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 additional 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;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Draws attention to the importance of taking into account, not only the quantity of the fleet, but also its quality; considers that the future CFP should encourage the increased sustainability of the fleet in environmental, economic and social terms, by promoting the progressive prevalence of sectors and operators that use fishing techniques and fishing gear with less impact on resources, and that benefit the communities of which they are part in terms of generating jobs and of the quality of these jobs;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Rejects a general reduction in the capacity of a given fleet solely and obligatorily on the basis of market criteriaCalls on the Commission to establish a definition of overcapacity at EU level accommodating regional definitions, where local specificities are taken into account;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Calls on the Commission to monitor and adjust fleet capacity ceilings for Member States so that they are in line with reliable data and technical advances are taken into account;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1
Paragraph 11 – indent 1
– renewal and modernisation of fleets with a view to making them safer, and more economically and environmentally sustainable (selection of techniques, energy efficiency, etc.)investments in new landing sites to improve the quality of fish, decrease the fuel consumption, ease the access of fish product into the markets and improve the cooperation between fishermen;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1 a (new)
Paragraph 11 – indent 1 a (new)
- investments in more sustainable fishing gear;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 2
Paragraph 11 – indent 2
– promotion of young people's increased involvement in the sector's activities and start-up packages in order to secure a new generation of fishermen entering into small-scale fisheries;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 7 a (new)
Paragraph 11 – indent 7 a (new)
- support for measures taken to reduce the negative effects on fish stocks caused by seals and certain seabirds, particularly when these are invasive species in a particular region;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers it urgeimportant to promote thea fairer and more adequate distribution of value added along the sector's value chain, by reducing operating margins, increasing the prices paid to producers and limiting the prices paid by end consumers; considers that, in cases where there are serious imbalances in the chain, the Member States should adopt means of intervention, such as setting maximum operating margins for each agent in the chain;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Advocates the establishment and expansion of the exclusion zone (currently 12 nautical miles) and adjoining areas, in line with the continental shelf; considers that, in the case of the outermost regions, this area should go from 100 to 200 nautical milesat the special access regime for small-scale fisheries in the 12 nautical mile zone should be retained;