28 Amendments of Alain CADEC related to 2011/2318(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas 853 % of fish stocks globally for which information is available are either fully exploited orand 32 % are overexploited, according to the most recent assessment by the FAO;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas quotas in RFMOs are primarily based on historical catches, which maintains preferential access for developed countries to global fish stock by the Contracting Parties, but the legitimate aspirations of neighbouring countries to develop resources exploited by the EU’s external fleet are also taken into consideration; whereas it is essential to maintain this principle within the framework of responsible fisheries;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E bis (new)
Recital E bis (new)
Ea. whereas the EU should ensure consistency between the common fisheries policy and the common trade policy;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the size of the EU market forin fisheries products and the geographical range of activities by EU-flagged and EU- owned vessels impose a high level of responsibility on the Union for ensuring that its fisheries’ footprint is ecologically sustainable, providing high quality seafood to consumers in Europe and other countries where European fish are marketed, and contributing to the social and economic fabric of coastal fishing communities both inside the EU and elsewhere;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that fishing by EU interests or destined for the EU market inside and outside Union waters by EU or non-EU vessels should be based upon the same standards in terms of ecological and social sustainability and transparency;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates its belief in the need for coherence between the fisheries policy of the Union and its policies with respect to development and, the environment and trade; notes that such coherence requires coordination both within the Commission itself and between the Commission and the governments of the individual Member States;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that the IPOA-Capacity (International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity) committed the EU, no later than 2005, to develop and implement a system for the management of fishing capacity; notes thatwould like the Commission to explain why it appears to be pursuing contradictory approaches to the management of capacity by proposing a freeze in certain RFMOs while proposing to remove the main regulatory limits to capacity within the EU’s internal and external fleets;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the Commission to support clearly defined principles and objectives for environmentally, economically and socially sustainable fisheries on the high seas and in waters under national jurisdiction at the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in Brazil in June 2012;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that the EU should launch an initiative at UN level to set up a global catch documentation scheme as a key tool to combat IUU fishing, compatible with what has been put in place for the European fleet;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the EU should be active within the UN system to explore means for the global community to address the need for more integrated global ocean governance, regarding both living marine resources and other resources as well as pollution and the impacts of climate change on the oceans, and social standards and working conditions;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 bis (new)
Paragraph 10 bis (new)
10a. Coastal State Agreements 10a. Would like to see enhanced cooperation with the coastal States on the sustainable use of resources; calls on the Commission to put forward a mechanism for resolving disputes when conflicts arise regarding the management of the coastal States’ stocks;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that bilateral fisheries agreements, or Sustainable Fisheries Agreements (SFA) as the Commission proposes to call them, negotiated between partners and equitably implemented, should be of benefit to both parties, providing economic resources, technical and scientific expertise and support for improved fisheries management and good governance to the third country, while allowing the continuation of fishing activities by EU vessels that provide a modest but important supply of fish toare a significant source of supply for the EU and ofor ther markets of certain developing countries, for both fresh and tinned products;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the intention of the Commission to include several provisions in future bilateral agreements, including respect for the principle of limiting access to resources that are scientifically demonstrated to be surplus to the coastal State’s own catch capacity, a human rights clause in line with Article 61 of the Unclos, a human rights clause, in line with international agreements on human rights, and the exclusivity clause, though the latter needs to be made more flexible and consistrengthened and made consistent acrost across agreements; proposes that the exclusivity clause should be included in the fisheries protocols and not the sustainable fisheries agreements;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that the Fishing Authorisations Regulation should be amended so that EU-flagged vessels which have temporarily left the register of a Member State to seek fishing opportunities elsewhere are not allowed togiven priority in benefiting from fishing opportunities under the SFA if they subsequently return to an EU register;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Encourages the Commission in its endeavours to obtain complete and reliable data from the coastal Stateand to develop the capacity of the coastal States to provide information on the total amount of fishing occurring in itstheir waters, so as to prevent over- exploitation;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Reaffirms that EU vessels should not compete with local fishermen for the same resources in the same fishing grounds and on the local markets;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Fully supports the concept of decoupling compensation for access to fisheries resources from sectoral support for development; strongly insists that shipowners should pay a fair and market- based portion of the formerportion of the fees paid, in line with the market and competition situation, and that improved oversight of the latter is badly needed in this sphere, including the possibility of suspension of payments in cases of failure to fulfil commitments by the coastal State;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Insists that the Commission closely monitor the implementation of bilateral agreements, with annual reports being sent to Parliament and the Council, as well as evaluations performed by external, independent experts to be sent to the co- legislators prior to the negotiation of new protocols, all of which should be in the public domain, subject to individual and commercial data protection rules;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that the EU should work towards an improved system of decision- making in RFMOs to avoid the ‘lowest common denominator’ approach that results from consensus, possibly by making more frequent use of voting;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Insists on the rapid expanevision of the coverage of RFMOs so that all high seas fisheries are effectively managed withRFMO agreements, where this has not yet been done, to integrate the ecosystem approach into ensure resource conservation; notes that this may require a combination of new RFMOs where none exist as well as an increase in the competence of existing RFMOsmanagement and conservation; in addition, recalls its support for the creation of new RFMOs to supplement the network of existing RFMOs and make it comprehensive;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Believes that RFMOs must develop management systems that provide for an equitable and fair resource allocation based upon transparent environmental and social criteria, rather than the simplistic as well as the criterion of historical catches, while ensuring that management and conservation measures are fully implemented by all members;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Is firmly opposed to the EU supportingTakes the view that the adoption of rights-based management systems in RFMOs which wouldshould not jeopardise the livelihood of dependent fishing communities and should be the basis for effective fisheries management;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Believes that information on private agreements between EU shipowners and third countries, as well as joint ventures in third countries, including the number and type of vessels operating under such agreements and joint ventures, as well as their catches, should continue to be provided by the Member State to the Commission and made publicly available, subject to individual and commercial data protection rules, as laid down by Regulation 1006/2008;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls upon the Commission and the Member States to give serious consideration to methods for preventdiscouraging EU-flagged vessels from being deregistered unless they are to be reflagged to States in good standing in all relevant RFMOs and to make every effort to ensure that there is fair competition between EU flags and the flags of non-EU States, which is the best way of combating deflagging; to this end, calls for a solution to be found to the legal vacuum that exists when a fisheries partnership agreement (FPA) is in force, but the protocol for this FPA has expired and the new protocol is being negotiated, to avoid tempting shipowners to deflag;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Is firmly opposed to the establishment of second registers for fishing vessels within the Member States and cCalls on the Commission to publish a legal analysis of the various registers already in use in the Member States and to assess them in economic, environmental and social terms;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 – indent 1
Paragraph 42 – indent 1
– be preceded by environmental and social impact assessments, for both non-EU and EU countries, and of the networks already created by pre-existing agreements,