12 Amendments of Alain CADEC related to 2012/2009(DEC)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
(a) considersuggests that transferable fishing concessions are the only possible solution to the problem of overcapacity, for which there is as yet no precise definitioncould be one conceivable solution to overcapacity if the latter was truly quantifiable and had been quantified, which is not currently the case;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) indicates clearly that withdrawing the licence or capacity of a vessel does not affect the fishing quotas, nor therefore the preservation of the resource (paragraph 27);
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
(ab) states that there is no clear link between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities and that this therefore 'complicates the identification of suitable policies to reduce fishing overcapacity' and 'makes it difficult to assess the performance of those policies' (paragraph 73);
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a c (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a c (new)
(ac) expresses scepticism about a fishing rights transfer scheme and calls on the Commission to explain what role transferable fishing rights could have in reducing capacity (paragraph 77);
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a d (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a d (new)
(ad) recommends that Member States should fulfil their obligation to keep the fishing fleet registers up to date so that the Commission may find a balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities, which is currently impossible (paragraph 77);
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – introductory part
Paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. ConsidersTakes the view that:
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – points a a and a b (new)
Paragraph 3 – points a a and a b (new)
(aa) the report by the Court of Auditors should not pass political judgment nor prejudge the methods for distributing fishing opportunities or fleet management tools that would be used to achieve the CFP objectives, which should be decided by the legislator; (ab) the recommendations based on the concept of overcapacity, which is not defined, are contradictory;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point b
Paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point c
Paragraph 3 – point c
(c) fishing effort and fishing capacity are two distinct concepts; for this reason, reducing fishing capacity is only one of the parameters for achieving a genuine reduction in fishing effort.
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Takes the view that, in order to achieve the objective of a real reduction in fishing effort, provision should be made for the following additional measures:
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point d a (new)
Paragraph 4 – point d a (new)
(da) ensuring widespread application of multiannual management plans;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point d b (new)
Paragraph 4 – point d b (new)
(db) improving the checks and respecting the capacity ceilings that are in place;