This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012AR0034
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)’
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)’
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)’
OJ C 391, 18.12.2012, p. 84–109
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
18.12.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 391/84 |
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)’
2012/C 391/10
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
— |
approves the setting-up of the new fund, the EMFF, to implement the CFP and considers that it is important to maintain the budget necessary to keep pace with the changes imposed by the CFP; |
— |
welcomes the simplification introduced by the regrouping within the new EMFF of most of the financial instruments of the CFP and the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP), which had previously been distributed among several funds; |
— |
asks that the EMFF's objectives be focused on fishing and not, as has been stated on several occasions, on giving priority to its replacement by other activities and considers it important to increase the attractiveness of the fishing profession; |
— |
is concerned about the cuts in the budget for data collection at a time when additional resources are needed. Having data available that is complete and processed for management purposes should be a precondition for the PCP and a budget priority for the EMFF; |
— |
condemns the abolition of any fleet adjustment measures, at a time when compliance with the new objectives of the CFP, particularly the progressive achievement of MSY, will require decommissioning or temporary stoppages; |
— |
considers that the introduction of the gradual reduction of discards will require the adaptation and modernisation of fishing vessels and appropriate investments in ports; |
— |
is amazed at the lack of funding for the preparation of the multi-year plans provided for; |
— |
asks that significant aid be given to technological innovation and investments which increase the selectivity of fishing gear; |
— |
considers that the phasing-out of storage aid is irrelevant. |
Rapporteur |
Mr Pierre MAILLE (FR/PES), President of the General Council of Finistère |
Reference document |
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund [repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1198/2006, Council Regulation (EC) No. 861/2006 and Council Regulation (EC) No. XXX/2011 on integrated maritime policy] COM(2011) 804 final |
I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS:
1. |
is satisfied, given the importance of fishing for many regions of the European Union, that the Commission wishes to maintain a Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); |
2. |
approves the setting-up of the new fund, the EMFF, to implement the CFP and considers that it is important to maintain the budget necessary to keep pace with the changes imposed by the CFP; |
3. |
considers that the CFP's priority must be to re-establish sustainable economic conditions for fisheries, within an ecosystem approach, by achieving maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and also to ensure supplies for European consumers by moving towards self-sufficiency in food; |
4. |
welcomes the simplification introduced by the regrouping within the new EMFF of most of the financial instruments of the CFP and the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP), which had previously been distributed among several funds; |
5. |
approves the incorporation of the IMP into the EMFF since economic activities, respect for the environment, knowledge acquisition and data collection, monitoring and control are interrelated; |
6. |
would, however, like the conditions for the direct management of the IMP to be better defined so as to clarify where appropriations are to go and which bodies are to receive aid; |
7. |
recognises the value of the proposed Common Strategic Framework for the cohesion funds (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, EAFRD, EMFF) which should make for simplification, consistency and pooled arrangements for managing these funds; |
8. |
asks that the EU be given a sufficiently large budget to ensure the effectiveness of cohesion policy and fulfil the ambitions of the Europe 2020 strategy; |
9. |
welcomes the possibility for the Member States and Regions using the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund, the ESF or the EMFF to take action in the field of fisheries and the development of territories dependent on fishing; |
10. |
asks that, in accordance with the principles of multilevel governance and respect for the national distribution of terms of reference, the local and regional authorities in each Member State be fully involved in the preparation, negotiation, implementation and review of the various strategic documents, including those relating to an integrated maritime policy; |
11. |
rejects the proposals to link cohesion policy with respecting the stability and growth pact, as the objectives of macroeconomic conditionality are not the same as those of cohesion policy; |
12. |
supports the principle of ex ante conditionality, so as to ensure that the preconditions of respecting the objectives of the CFP are met on the basis of past experiences; |
13. |
wants the consequences of the changes to the criteria for allocating resources between Member States to be evaluated, since these criteria are different from those used previously for the EFF; |
14. |
points out that in its opinion on CFP reform it was against the obligation to require each Member State to establish transferable fishing concessions (TFCs) and hoped that the reduction of discards would be introduced gradually; |
15. |
approves of the importance given to improving knowledge and data collection and emphasises the value of the partnership between fishermen and scientists. Having data available that is complete and processed for management purposes should be a precondition for the PCP and a budget priority for the EMFF; |
16. |
condemns the abolition of any fleet adjustment measures, at a time when compliance with the new objectives of the CFP, particularly the progressive achievement of MSY, will require decommissioning or temporary stoppages. Would like this to be possible, at least for some fisheries, by providing for strict supervisory measures, especially as regards fishing rights, and, possibly, a gradual decrease of aid in line with trends in stocks; |
17. |
considers it important to increase the attractiveness of the fishing profession by improving working conditions, health and safety on board and funding the investments necessary, without limiting them to one operation per vessel; |
18. |
notes that TFCs are voluntary. Considers that the EMFF should accompany their creation by financing advice, experience sharing and transitional measures; |
19. |
is amazed at the lack of funding for the preparation of the multi-year plans provided for, as they are a major tool set up by the basic CFP regulation for the proper management of resources and the marine environment; |
20. |
approves of the reduction of discards and unwanted catches and asks that significant aid be given to technological innovation and investments which increase the selectivity of fishing gear; |
21. |
considers that technological developments can help one and the same vessel in several ways to improve selectivity, reduce its impact on the marine environment and provide a high level of safety for seamen, provided that the equipment in question is not superfluous and represents genuine progress without increasing the overall amount of fishing; |
22. |
approves of the support given to fishermen when they take part in the protection and restoration of biodiversity and marine ecosystems. This support must enable their involvement in fisheries management measures especially in Natura 2000 sites and protected marine areas, such as temporary cessation schemes, licensing, etc. Since fishermen are not solely responsible for protecting the marine environment, the EMFF must not be used to directly fund the management of these areas or their environmental monitoring; |
23. |
considers that the fishing industry must also help to combat global warming and pollution. The EMFF must be able to support research and innovation in order to have greater efficiency and fewer CO2 emissions, especially when the price of fuel has made the activity less competitive. It is therefore necessary to be able to help vessels replace their engines and allow the fishing industry to benefit from the technological advances in this field; |
24. |
considers that the introduction of the gradual reduction of discards will require the adaptation and modernisation of fishing vessels and appropriate investments in ports; |
25. |
opposes the development of a production chain of fish meal made from discards, but asks that calls for innovative efforts focusing on the proper identification of various types of discards so that action can be taken to reduce them and ensure their appropriate utilisation; |
26. |
welcomes the Commission's commitment to the local development of fisheries areas. It asks that the EMFF's objectives be focused on fishing and not, as has been stated on several occasions, on giving priority to its replacement by other activities. The EMFF should support a more balanced approach, without dissociating diversification and the maintenance of direct and indirect jobs, and without forgetting the need to provide jobs for the younger generation. In particular, the regulation must allow start-up aid to help young people engage in fishing, as provided for in aquaculture, whereas the wish to introduce TFCs may make access to the profession even more difficult; |
27. |
considers that local development can only succeed by mobilising and instilling a strong sense of partnership among local actors, politicians and local authorities, professional associations, fishermen's organisations, etc. This sense of partnership may be achieved by the spread of Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) or by enlarging the LAGs created in the context of measures inspired by the EAFRD to cover fisheries issues. Governance of the FLAGs must lie with the local and regional authorities who, together with the regions, must play an important role in defining and implementing the objectives of local development strategy as well as in managing funds; |
28. |
asks that more support be provided for fish trading and processing firms in order to promote value added fisheries products and to improve the structure of the sector's downstream activities: technological innovations, productivity gains can be encouraged and accompanied, without being limited to one per firm; |
29. |
suggests that more ambition should be shown in developing a European certification scheme for seafood products: the consumer must be able to identify the products of European fisheries, and know the efforts made to respect biodiversity and the health standards required by the CFP; |
30. |
considers that the CMO market measures must contribute towards the achievement of the CFP's objectives. It therefore asks if market tools can be set up to limit the impact of the transition to MSY and maintain local economic outlets for European fisheries products; |
31. |
considers that the phasing-out of storage aid is irrelevant when you consider the significant production and marketing variables affecting professional fishing; |
32. |
welcomes the significant encouragement given to aquaculture and the many steps in its favour: the setting-up of young people, innovation, investments, management, relief and advisory services, insurance, etc.; |
33. |
calls for demanding standards to be set as regards environmental conditions, the knowledge of inputs for farming and the extent of the impact on the environment; |
34. |
considers that aquaculture must remain a net producer of fish proteins and not lead to the overfishing of species that are useful for the feeding of farmed fish, thereby running the risk of upsetting the balance in the food chain and or adversely affecting biodiversity; |
35. |
supports the possibility of encouraging the production of seaweed, whether for food purposes or not; |
36. |
considers that the outermost regions are all in situations recognised as being more difficult than the rest of Europe. This means that more should be done than just giving aid for the marketing of products, in order to cover the additional costs facing the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in these territories; |
37. |
also requests that the EMFF really take into account the need to develop fisheries in the outermost regions by allowing aid to be provided for fleet renewal; |
38. |
considers that the implementation of measures to support the installation of fish aggregating devices is important for the development of a sustainable coastal fishing industry in the outermost regions; |
39. |
proposes the setting-up of a regional advisory council (RAC) for the outermost regions along the lines of those that already exist in continental Europe; |
40. |
draws attention to the need for more effective controls in order to ensure that everyone respects the CFP regulations. If controls are to be credible, then the budget for them has to be adjusted accordingly and new more effective methods of control identified; |
41. |
is concerned about the cuts in the budget for data collection at a time when additional resources are needed, since the achievement of MSY for all stocks requires the collection of additional data, as there are still many stocks about which little is known; suggests that the EMFF's contribution in this area be increased to 80 % of eligible expenses; |
42. |
considers that RACs require clear and permanent support, particularly for their role of proposing scientific studies or management measures adapted to fisheries issues, so that the objectives of regionalisation are fully implemented; |
43. |
is highly committed to informing EU citizens and consumers about the EU's policies and how its funds are used. It approves the transparency sought by providing a website with information about results, operations undertaken and EMFF beneficiaries; |
44. |
considers it important to provide plenty of information about the EMFF's new instruments to potential beneficiaries so as to ensure that this fund is used properly; |
45. |
considers that the Commission's use of delegated acts is excessive and recommends laying down a regulation which establishes most, if not all, of the rules for implementation right from the start; |
46. |
draws attention to the difficulties linked to the timetable for the adoption of the various decisions that have a bearing on the EMFF:
|
47. |
therefore considers that the current draft of the EMFF regulation will still have to undergo significant changes before it can be adopted. |
II. AMENDMENTS
Amendment 1
Recital 9
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
The CFP basic regulation states that MSY should be achieved by 2015 if possible. This paragraph should remind readers of that nuance.
Amendment 2
Recital 37
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
Transferable fishing concessions must be optional and left to the discretion of the Member States.
Amendment 3
Recital 38
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
Transferable fishing concessions must be optional and left to the discretion of the Member States.
Aid for the installation of young fishermen is required to ensure a renewal of the generations and encourage the arrival of new seamen who are better trained and aware of the issues at stake as regards more assertive resource management.
Amendment 4
Recital 39
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
Plans to adapt the fishing industry which involve aid for the decommissioning of vessels must not be ruled out. Aided decommissioning will make it possible to reduce fishing capacity where the circumstances are difficult (resource depletion, etc.) and thus avoid a transfer of activity to healthy fisheries. Such aid should be maintained by ensuring that attention is paid to the actual conditions under which fishing is reduced, i.e. by making such aid subject to a withdrawal of fishing rights.
Amendment 5
Recital 41
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Reason
It is important to strengthen the role of river and lake eco-corridors, for example by removing any barriers in rivers, so as to ensure that migratory fish can complete their life-cycle.
Amendment 6
Recital 62
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
The phasing-out of storage aid seems irrelevant when, under Article 15 of the basic CFP regulation, vessels will have to gradually land all their catches, including discards. It seems a good idea to provide for storage aid so as to enable the organisations to manage the quantities landed before placing a value on them.
Amendment 7
Article 3
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
Article 3 Definitions |
Article 3 Definitions |
||||
1. For the purposes of this Regulation and without prejudice to paragraph 2, the definitions referred to in Article 5 of the [Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy], Article 5 of the [Regulation on the Common Organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products] and Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and Article 2 of Regulation No [Regulation laying down Common Provisions] shall apply. |
1. For the purposes of this Regulation and without prejudice to paragraph 2, the definitions referred to in Article 5 of the [Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy], Article 5 of the [Regulation on the Common Organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products] and Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and Article 2 of Regulation No [Regulation laying down Common Provisions shall apply. |
||||
2. For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply: |
2. For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
a given geographical area, developed by European Institutions, Member States, their regions and where appropriate third countries sharing a sea basin; the strategy takes into account the geographic, climatic, economic and political specificities of the sea basin; |
a given geographical area, developed by European Institutions, Member States, their regions and where appropriate third countries sharing a sea basin; the strategy takes into account the geographic, climatic, economic and political specificities of the sea basin; |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Amendment 8
Article 6(4)
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
(4) Promoting a sustainable and resource efficient fisheries through the focus on the following areas: |
(4) Promoting a sustainable and resource efficient fisheries through the focus on the following areas: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Reason
Fish-breeding is necessary in some areas where stocks are seriously depleted.
Amendment 9
Article 13
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
The following operations shall not be eligible under the EMFF: |
The following operations shall not be eligible under the EMFF: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Reason
Aid should be provided for the construction of vessels in the outermost regions, as these must upgrade their working tools so that vessels comply more with the requirements of resource management and the health standards for products.
Aided decommissioning will make it possible to reduce fishing capacity where the circumstances are difficult (resource depletion, etc.) and thus avoid a transfer of activity to healthy fisheries. Such aid should be maintained by ensuring that attention is paid to the actual conditions under which fishing is reduced, through a better management of fishing rights.
Funding for the temporary cessation of fishing activities will compensate for stoppages forced on vessels because of pollution or in connection with a biological recovery period decided for certain species (as was done for anchovies). Without funding, the vessels concerned will probably transfer their activity and target other species of fish and affect their stocks.
Amendment 10
Article 15
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
1. The resources available for commitments from the EMFF for the period 2014 to 2020 under shared management shall be EUR 5 520 000 000 in current prices in accordance with the annual breakdown set out in Annex II. |
1. The resources available for commitments from the EMFF for the period 2014 to 2020 under shared management shall be EUR 5 520 000 000 in current prices in accordance with the annual breakdown set out in Annex II. |
||||
2. EUR 4 535 000 000 of the resources referred to in paragraph (1) shall be allocated to the sustainable development of fisheries, aquaculture and fisheries areas under Chapters I, II and III of Title V. |
2. EUR 4 535 000 000 of the resources referred to in paragraph (1) shall be allocated to the sustainable development of fisheries, aquaculture and fisheries areas under Chapters I, II III of Title V. |
||||
3. EUR 477 000 000 of the resources referred to in paragraph (1) shall be allocated to control and enforcement measures referred to in Article 78. |
3. EUR 477 000 000 of the resources referred to in paragraph (1) shall be allocated to control and enforcement measures referred to in Article 78. |
||||
4. EUR 358 000 000 of the resources referred to in paragraph (1) shall be allocated to measures on data collection referred to in Article 79. |
4. EUR 358 000 000 of the resources referred to in paragraph (1) shall be allocated to measures on data collection referred to in Article 79. |
||||
5. The resources allocated to compensation of outermost regions under Chapter V of Title V, shall not exceed per year: |
5. The resources allocated to compensation of outermost regions under Chapter V of Title V, shall not exceed per year: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
6. EUR 45 000 000 of the resources referred to in paragraph (1) shall be allocated to the storage aid referred to in Article 72 from 2014 to 2018 included. |
6. EUR 45 000 000 of the resources referred to in paragraph (1) shall be allocated to the storage aid referred to in Article 72 from 2014 to 2018 included. |
Reason
This article, doubtless through an oversight, does not cover funding for marketing and processing measures provided for in Title V of this regulation. Under the CFP basic regulation all the outermost regions should be taken into account when allocating compensation aid. Provision must be made for a specific amount for Guadeloupe, Martinique and Mayotte.
Amendment 11
Article 26
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
Support under this Chapter shall contribute to the achievement of the Union priorities identified in Article 6(2) and (4). |
Support under this Chapter shall contribute to the achievement of the Union priorities identified in Article 6 (2) and (4). |
Reason
Article 6(1) of this regulation is about increasing employment and territorial cohesion. It seems essential that this chapter on the sustainable development of fishing areas should incorporate this ambition.
Amendment 12
Article 31
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
1. In order to promote human capital and social dialogue, the EMFF may support: |
1. In order to promote human capital and social dialogue, the EMFF may support: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
2. The support referred to in paragraph 1 shall also be granted to spouses of self-employed fishermen or, when and in so far as recognised by national law, the life partners of self-employed fishermen, not being employees or business partners, where they habitually, under the conditions laid down by national law, participate in the activities of the self-employed fishermen or perform ancillary tasks. |
2. The support referred to in paragraph 1 shall also be granted to spouses of self-employed fishermen or, when and in so far as recognised by national law, the life partners of self-employed fishermen, not being employees or business partners, , under the conditions laid down by national law, participate in the activities of the self-employed fishermen or perform ancillary tasks. |
Amendment 13
Article 32
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
1. In order to facilitate diversification and job creation outside fishing, the EMFF may support: |
1. In order to facilitate diversification and job creation, the EMFF may support: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
2. Support under paragraph 1 (a) shall be granted to fishermen who: |
2. Support under paragraph 1 (a) shall be granted to fishermen who: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
3. Support under paragraph 1(b) shall be granted to small scale coastal fishermen owning a Union fishing vessel registered as active and which have carried out fishing activities at sea at least 60 days during the two years preceding the date of submission of the application. The fishing licence associated with the fishing vessel shall be permanently withdrawn. |
3. Support under paragraph 1() shall be granted to small scale coastal fishermen owning a Union fishing vessel registered as active and which have carried out fishing activities at sea at least 60 days during the two years preceding the date of submission of the application. The fishing licence associated with the fishing vessel shall be permanently withdrawn. |
||||
4. Beneficiaries of the support referred to in paragraph 1 shall not engage in professional fishing in the five years following the reception of the last payment of the support. |
4. beneficiaries of the support referred to in paragraph 1 shall not engage in professional fishing in the five years following the reception of the last payment of the support. |
||||
5. Eligible costs under paragraph 1(b) shall be limited to the costs of modification of a vessel undertaken for the purpose of its reassignment. |
5. Eligible costs under paragraph 1() shall be limited to the costs of modification of a vessel undertaken for the purpose of its reassignment. |
||||
6. The amount of financial assistance granted under paragraph 1 (a) shall not exceed 50 % of the budget foreseen in the business plan for each operation and shall not exceed a maximum amount of 50 000 EUR for each operation. |
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
The amount of financial assistance granted under paragraph 1() shall not exceed 50 % of the budget foreseen in the business plan for each operation and shall not exceed a maximum amount of 50 000 EUR for each operation. |
Reason
Funding for retraining must be supplemented by aid for decommissioning by destruction, as provided for in the former Fund (EFF). If the associated fishing rights are actually abolished, this measure will enable overall fishing to be reduced.
It also seems essential to provide specific aid for the installation of young fishermen, so as to ensure a renewal of the generations and encourage the arrival of new seamen who are better trained and aware of the issues at stake as regards more assertive resource management.
Amendment 14
Article 33
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
1. In order to improve working conditions on board for fishermen the EMFF may support investments on board or in individual equipments providing that these investments go beyond standards required under national or Union law. |
1. In order to improve working conditions on board for fishermen the EMFF may support investments on board or in individual equipments providing that these investments go beyond standards required under Union law. |
2. The support shall be granted to fishermen or owners of fishing vessels. |
2. The support shall be granted to fishermen or owners of fishing vessels. |
3. When the operation consists in an investment on board, the support shall not be granted more than once during the programming period for the same fishing vessel. When the operation consists of an investment in individual equipment, the support shall not be granted more than once during the programming period for the same beneficiary. |
3. |
4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 150 in order to identify the types of operations eligible under paragraph 1. |
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 150 in order to identify the types of operations eligible under paragraph 1. |
Reason
Aid should not be withheld from fishermen who are nationals of countries which already have a high level of health and safety requirements. For the sake of equality between fishermen, it is the European standard which should be considered as the basic reference.
Moreover, if one wants safety conditions for seamen to improve, it is unreasonable to limit the possibility of aid to just once in an EMFF programme lasting 7 years.
Amendment 15
Article 33a
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
|
Reason
Funding for the temporary cessation of fishing activities will compensate for stoppages forced on vessels because of pollution or in connection with a biological recovery period decided for certain species (as was done for anchovies). Without funding, the vessels concerned will probably transfer their activity and target other species of fish. In the previous fund (EFF) this measure was used effectively on several occasions.
Amendment 16
Article 35
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
1. In order to ensure efficient implementation of conservation measures under Articles 17 and 21 of the [Regulation on Common Fisheries Policy] the EMFF may support: |
1. In order to ensure efficient implementation of conservation measures under Articles 17 and 21 of the [Regulation on Common Fisheries Policy] the EMFF may support: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
2. The support referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be granted to public authorities. |
2. The support referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be granted to public authorities . |
Reason
Multi-year plans and other conservation measures provided for in Articles 17 and 21 of the basic regulation must also be supported in their development phase with clear support from advisory councils as an important element of regionalisation.
Amendment 17
Article 36
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
1. In order to reduce the impact of fishing on the marine environment, foster the elimination of discards and facilitate the transition to exploitation of living marine biological resources that restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the MSY, the EMFF may support investments in equipment: |
1. In order to reduce the impact of fishing on the marine environment, foster the elimination of discards and facilitate the transition to exploitation of living marine biological resources that restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the MSY, the EMFF may support investments in equipment: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
2 Support shall not be granted more than once during the programming period for the same Union fishing vessel and for the same type of equipment. |
|
||||
3. Support shall only be granted when the gear or other equipment referred under paragraph 1 has demonstrably better size-selection or lower impact on non-target species than the standard gear or other equipment permitted under Union law or relevant national law of Member States adopted in the context of regionalisation as referred to in the [Regulation on the CFP]. |
Support shall only be granted when the gear or other equipment referred under paragraph 1 has demonstrably better size-selection or lower impact on non-target species than the standard gear or other equipment permitted under Union law or relevant national law of Member States adopted in the context of regionalisation as referred to in the [Regulation on the CFP]. |
||||
4. Support shall be granted to: |
Support shall be granted to: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Reason
To develop the fishing techniques needed to achieve MSY as soon as possible, encouragement must be provided for the modernisation of gear and vessels as well as the implementation of the technical measures provided for by the CFP basic regulation. Moreover, if one really wants fishing techniques to become more sustainable, it is unreasonable to limit the possibility of aid to just one EMFF programme lasting 7 years.
Amendment 18
Article 38
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
2. Operations under this Article shall be implemented by public law bodies and shall involve fishermen or organisations of fishermen, recognised by the Member State, or non-governmental organisation in partnership with organisations of fishermen or FLAGs as defined under Article 62. |
2. Operations under this Article shall be implemented by public law bodies and shall involve fishermen or organisations of fishermen, recognised by the Member State, or non-governmental organisation in partnership with organisations of fishermen or FLAGs as defined under Article 62. |
Reason
Articles 52 et seq. of the CFP basic regulation provide for a greater involvement of regional advisory councils in management measures and even gives them a greater possibility of making proposals. These councils must therefore be allowed to have EMFF support to accompany them in their actions.
Amendment 19
Article 39
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
2. Support shall not contribute to the replacement or modernisation of main or ancillary engines. Support shall only be granted to owners of fishing vessels and not more than once during the programming period for the same fishing vessel. |
|
Reason
Funding must be allowed for engine changes because it is very surprising, even paradoxical, to exclude engine renewal from EMFF aid. Engines are in fact the main article of equipment on which efforts could be focused to reduce pollutant emissions or fuel consumption.
Amendment 20
Article 40
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
3. Support under this Article shall not be granted more than once during the programming period for the same fishing vessel or the same beneficiary. |
|
Reason
To encourage innovation and a real improvement in product quality, encouragement must be provided for modifications in vessels to make them more respectful of the resource and the marine environment. For this reason, if one wants fishing techniques to become more sustainable, it is unreasonable to limit the possibility of aid to just once in an EMFF programme lasting 7 years.
Amendment 21
Article 41
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
4. Support shall not cover the construction of new ports, new landing sites or new auction halls. |
|
Reason
It must be possible to provide funding for the fitting-out of sites that are not yet equipped to take account of the obvious and inevitable changes in the workplaces of vessels.
Amendment 22
Article 42
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
Article 42 Inland fishing |
Article 42 Inland fishing |
||||
1. In order to reduce the impact of inland fishing on the environment, increase energy efficiency, increase the quality of fish landed, or to improve safety or working conditions, the EMFF may support the following investments: |
1. In order to reduce the impact of inland fishing on the environment, increase energy efficiency, increase the quality of fish landed, or to improve safety or working conditions, the EMFF may support the following investments: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
2 For the purposes of paragraph 1: |
2 For the purposes of paragraph 1: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
3. In order to sustain diversification by inland fishermen, the EMFF may support the reassignment of vessels operating in inland fishing to other activities outside fishing under the conditions of Article 32 of this Regulation. |
3. In order to sustain diversification by inland fishermen, the EMFF may support the reassignment of vessels operating in inland fishing to other activities outside fishing under the conditions of Article 32 of this Regulation. |
||||
4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, references made in Article 32 to fishing vessels shall be understood as references to vessels operating exclusively in inland water. |
4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, references made in Article 32 to fishing vessels shall be understood as references to vessels operating exclusively in inland water. |
||||
5. In order to protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora, the EMFF may support the participation of inland fishermen in managing, restoring and monitoring NATURA 2000 sites where these areas directly concern fishing activities as well as the rehabilitation of inland waters, including spawning grounds and migration routes for migratory species, without prejudice of Article 38(1)(d). |
5. In order to protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora, the EMFF may support the participation of inland fishermen in managing, restoring and monitoring NATURA 2000 sites where these areas directly concern fishing activities as well as the rehabilitation of inland waters, including spawning grounds and migration routes for migratory species, without prejudice of Article 38(1)(d). |
||||
6. Member States shall ensure that vessels receiving support under this Article continue to operate exclusively in inland waters. |
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Member States shall ensure that vessels receiving support under this Article continue to operate exclusively in inland waters. |
Reason
It would be helpful to overturn private fishing rights – old rights in rem which make it difficult for the public authorities to manage waters and which reduce fishermen's incomes. The role of river and lake eco-corridors should also be strengthened, for example by removing barriers in rivers, so as to ensure that migratory fish can complete their life-cycle.
Amendment 23
Article 45
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
1. In order to stimulate innovation in aquaculture, the EMFF may support operations: |
1. In order to stimulate innovation in aquaculture, the EMFF may support operations: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
2. Operations under this Article must be carried out in collaboration with a scientific or technical body as recognised by the national law of each Member State which shall validate the results of such operations. |
2. Operations under this Article must be carried out in collaboration with a scientific or technical body as recognised by the national law of each Member State which shall validate the results of such operations. |
||||
3. The results of operations receiving support shall be subject to adequate publicity by the Member State according to Article 143 |
3. The results of operations receiving support shall be subject to adequate publicity by the Member State according to Article 143. |
||||
|
|
Reason
There are farms where it will not be possible to use new knowledge or technical resources due to their physical set-up or to legal impediments. It is therefore necessary to leave open the possibility of creating a new facility where these more advanced, innovative resources could be implemented.
Official aquaculture centres provide a reference for the aquaculture sector which should not be left out when it comes to accessing this support.
Amendment 24
Article 46
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
Article 46 Investments in off-shore and non-food aquaculture |
Article 46 Investments in off-shore non-food aquaculture |
1. In order to foster forms of aquaculture with high growth potential, the EMFF may support investment in the development of off-shore or non food aquaculture. |
1. In order to foster forms of aquaculture with high growth potential, the EMFF may support investment in the development of off-shore or non food aquaculture. |
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 150 in order to identify the type of operations and the eligible costs. |
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 150 in order to identify the type of operations and the eligible costs. |
Reason
Changing "and" to "or" in the title of the Article opens up the scope to types of aquaculture with a high potential for growth that are not carried out off-shore.
Amendment 25
Article 48
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
4. Aquaculture farms shall not receive support for the advisory services more than once for each category of services covered under paragraph 2 (a) to (e) during the programming period. |
|
Reason
If one wants to make aquaculture more sustainable, it is unreasonable to limit the possibilities of receiving advice to just once in an EMFF programme lasting seven years.
Amendment 26
Article 62
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
Fisheries local action groups |
Fisheries local action groups |
||||
1. For the purposes of the EMFF the local action groups referred to in Article 28(1)(b) of [Regulation (EU) No […] laying down Common Provisions] shall be designated as Fisheries Local Action Groups (hereinafter "FLAGs") |
1. For the purposes of the EMFF the local action groups referred to in Article 28(1)(b) of [Regulation (EU) No […] laying down Common Provisions] shall be designated as Fisheries Local Action Groups (hereinafter "FLAGs") |
||||
2. The FLAGs shall propose an integrated local development strategy based at least on the elements set out in Article 61 and be responsible for its implementation. |
2. The FLAGs shall propose an integrated local development strategy based at least on the elements set out in Article 61 and be responsible for its implementation. |
||||
3. The FLAGs shall: |
3. The FLAGs shall: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
4. If the local development strategy is supported by other Funds in addition to the EMFF a specific selection body for EMFF supported projects shall be established according to the criteria set out in paragraph (3). |
4. If the local development strategy is supported by other Funds in addition to the EMFF a specific selection body for EMFF supported projects shall be established according to the criteria set out in paragraph (3). |
||||
5. The minimum tasks of FLAGs are set out in Article 30(3) of the [Regulation (EU) No […] laying down Common Provisions]: |
5. The minimum tasks of FLAGs are set out in Article 30(3) of the [Regulation (EU) No […] laying down Common Provisions]: |
||||
6. FLAGs may also carry out additional tasks delegated to them by the managing authority and/or the paying agency. |
6. FLAGs may also carry out additional tasks delegated to them by the managing authority and/or the paying agency. |
||||
7. The respective roles of the FLAG, the managing authority /the paying agency for all implementation tasks relating to the strategy shall be clearly described in the operational programme. |
7. The respective roles of the FLAG, the managing authority /the paying agency for all implementation tasks relating to the strategy shall be clearly described in the operational programme. |
||||
|
|
Reason
FLAGs could in some cases be an extension of other rural development groups that can broaden their geographical scope. This would also allow more integrated projects to be implemented, with lower management, control and monitoring costs.
Amendment 27
Article 69
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
1. The EMFF may support the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans referred to in Article 32 of [Regulation (EU) No on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products]. |
1. The EMFF support the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans referred to in Article 32 of [Regulation (EU) No on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products]. |
Reason
Each producers' organisation must prepare and submit to the competent authorities of the Member State an operational programme for the fishing season. The question here is to express more explicitly support for these tools that make for a better management of resources and thus enable the fishing industry to adapt to meet consumer needs.
Amendment 28
Article 70
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
1. The EMFF may support compensation to recognised producer organisations and associations of producers organisations which store fishery products listed in Annex II of Regulation No. [on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products], provided that the products are stored in conformity with Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation No …[on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products]: |
1. The EMFF may support compensation to recognised producer organisations and associations of producers organisations which store fishery products listed in Annex II of Regulation No. [on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products], provided that the products are stored in conformity with Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation No …[on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products]: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
2. By 2019 support referred to in paragraph 1 shall be phased out. |
|
Reason
The phasing-out of storage aid seems irrelevant when, under Article 15 of the basic CFP regulation, vessels will have to gradually land all their catches, including discards. It seems a good idea to provide for storage aid so as to enable the organisations to manage the quantities landed before placing a value on them.
Amendment 29
Article 71
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
Article 71 Marketing measures |
Article 71 Marketing measures |
||||
1. The EMFF may support marketing measures for fishery and aquaculture products which aim at: |
1. The EMFF may support marketing measures for fishery and aquaculture products which aim at: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
2. Operations under paragraph (1)(b) may include the integration of production, processing and marketing activities of the supply chain. |
2. Operations under paragraph (1)(b) may include the integration of production, processing and marketing activities of the supply chain. |
Reason
As landing all catches is not a real solution to the problem of discards, it should not be mentioned here. The only alternative to landing all catches is to encourage the development and implementation of more selective fishing gear. This amendment brings the text into line with the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the CFP Regulation, which proposed the amendment of Article 15 on the landing of all catches.
Amendment 30
Title Chapter V
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
Amendment 31
Article 73
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
1. The EMFF may support the compensation regime introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 791/2007 for the additional costs incurred by the operators in the fishing, farming and marketing of certain fishery and aquaculture products from the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands, French Guiana, and Réunion. |
1. The EMFF compensation regime for the additional costs incurred by the operators in the fishing, farming and marketing of certain fishery and aquaculture products from the . |
Reason
Regulation (EC) No. 791/2007 will be repealed at the end of 2013, when the current EMFF regulation comes into force. Account should be taken of the specific features of all of the outermost regions without distinction, as in the CFP basic regulation, as they are in similar situations.
Amendment 32
Article 75a
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
The outermost regions are highly dependent on fishing, which is often carried out by very small vessels. It is important to provide support for equipment and construction so that vessels comply more with the requirements of resource management and the health standards for products.
To reduce fishing near coasts, it must be possible to provide funding for such equipment installed offshore if its construction and development is conducted in cooperation with a scientific body.
Amendment 33
Article 85
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
Article 85 Scientific Advice and knowledge |
Article 85 Scientific Advice and knowledge |
||||
1. The EMFF may support the provision of scientific deliverables, particularly applied-research projects directly linked to the provision of scientific opinions and advice, for the purpose of sound and efficient fisheries management decisions under the CFP. |
1. The EMFF may support the provision of scientific deliverables, particularly applied-research projects directly linked to the provision of scientific opinions and advice, for the purpose of sound and efficient fisheries management decisions under the CFP. |
||||
2. In particular, the following types of operations shall be eligible: |
2. In particular, the following types of operations shall be eligible: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Reason
In the context of the CFP, extensive consideration is given to the difficulties faced by maritime fishing due to overfishing, fuel prices and administrative hurdles. Therefore, the studies and pilot projects necessary to apply and implement the CFP should include aquaculture as well as fishing as a source of food production with a high potential for development in the EU.
Amendment 34
Article 88
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
1. The EMFF may support operating costs of the Advisory Councils as set up by Article 52 of [Regulation on Common Fisheries Policy]. |
1. The EMFF support costs of the Advisory Councils as set up by Article 52 of [Regulation on Common Fisheries Policy] . |
Reason
The general rules and guidelines of the Common Fisheries Policy are decided by co-decision between the European Parliament and the Council (environmental objectives, industry support mechanisms, common market organisation, etc.). However, the specific regulations must be defined on a fishing area scale (specific technical measures and multi-year management plans). This is why the basic regulation provides for a greater involvement of advisory councils in decision-making.
Such an institutional organisation has many advantages over the current situation: it would be structured in accordance with ecosystems, it would facilitate adaptive management, assign priorities, make for a clearer division of authority and encourage the participation of stakeholders.
A stronger RAC would remain a light structure made up of four to five permanent posts.
Amendment 35
Article 100
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
Decommitment |
Decommitment |
The Commission shall decommit any portion of a budget commitment for an operational programme that has not been used for the purpose of pre-financing or making interim payments or for which no declaration of expenditure fulfilling the requirements laid down in Article 98(3) has been presented to it in relation to expenditure incurred by 31 December of the second year following that of the budget commitment. |
The Commission shall decommit any portion of a budget commitment for an operational programme that has not been used for the purpose of pre-financing or making interim payments or for which no declaration of expenditure fulfilling the requirements laid down in Article 98(3) has been presented to it in relation to expenditure incurred by 31 December of the year following that of the budget commitment. |
|
|
Reason
The EMFF is likely to be put in practice slowly in view, firstly, of the slow rate of implementation of the present EFF, together with the possibility of continuing to make commitments and payments with this fund until the end of 2015. Secondly, and following the above-mentioned overlap, the economic and financial situation of public administrations, together with the limits on bank credit for private promoters, will not be such as to generate a rate of economic development matching the "N + 2" rule. The rule should therefore be made more flexible, moving to "N + 3" at least for the first three years (2014-2016) until the programme has reached proper cruising speed.
Brussels, 9 October 2012.
The President of the Committee of the Regions
Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO