Activities of Carl HAGLUND related to 2012/2009(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Special Report No 12//2011 (2011 discharge): Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?
Amendments (23)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Welcomes the special report by the Court of Auditors that scrutinizes the economical and ecological impact the implementation of the CFP and the EFF has had on the Union fishing sector. Notes that, in its report, the Court of Auditors:
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 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
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 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) states that a very significant number of jobs has been lost in the European fishing industry over the past decade because of the poor state of fish stocks and technological advances have increased fishing capacity;
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 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
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 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) Notes that the total catches in the Union have decreased with over 1 million tonnes over the last decade;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) considers that overcapacity continues to be one of the main reasons of the failure of the CFP aiming at assuring sustainable fisheries;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that the data available on the actual capacity of the Union fishing fleet are not reliable, because technological development has not been taken into account and the Member States failed to accurately report on the fleet capacities.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Considers that the fleet capacity ceilings don't reflect the fishing effort and have become irrelevant since the fleet is well below the ceiling due to the decreased amount of gross tonnage and engine size. At the same time, points out that, due to the technological advances, the fishing capacity of the fleets has increased with an average of 3 % per year during the last decade.
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
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;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes 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 with fishing opportunities.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point b
Paragraph 3 – point b
(b) in the interthe scrapping schemes have partially been badly implemented, with examplest of reducing fleet size, it is essential to allow for an adequate transitional period before the final withdrawal of public funds for scrappage, by providing support measures for crewstax payers money used for scrapping of already inactive vessels or even for rebuilding new vessels; while at the same time other Member States have had scrapping schemes that have fulfilled their purpose; stresses therefore the need for strict safeguards when using scrapping schemes as a way of reducing overcapacity in order to avoid abuse;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Takes the view that, in order to achieve the objective of a realConsiders that a reduction in fishing effort, provision should be made for the following additional measures: is needed to reach maximum sustainable yield.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to set effective fishing fleet capacity ceilings.
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the Commission to clarify how fishing concessions should be treated if fishing vessels are decommissioned with public aid.
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Calls on the Commission to enforce Member State’s obligation to correctly update their fleet register and to establish the obligation to report on their efforts to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities;