Activities of Niclas HERBST related to 2023/2124(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries (debate)
EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries (debate)
Reports (1)
REPORT on the EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries
Amendments (46)
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
Citation 9
– having regard to the letter from Commissioner Sinkevičius of 3 April 2023 on the legal consequences of the action plan for crabbrown shrimp fishingery with bottom trawls, known as ‘Krabbenfischerei’,
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
Citation 13 a (new)
– having regards to the Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030 (COM(2021)236);
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 b (new)
Citation 13 b (new)
– having regard to ‘Food from the Ocean’ report of the Science Advice for Policy by European Academies;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas there is an urgent need to step up action at EU level to reverse thereal existing and scientifically described declines of marine ecosystems by tackling, where possible, human and natural pressures, supporting the positive recovery of some fish stocks and encouraging scientific studies and any research and development that ensure sustainable fisheries and aquaculture;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the 2021-2030 Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive aquaculture call for the promotion of organic aquaculture and encourages the diversification of aquaculture production towards low trophic species such as shellfish and algae; whereas the ‘Food from the Ocean’ report underlines that developing mariculture of marine herbivores such as bivalves will help closing the EU’s seafood gap in a sustainable way;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the EU must legally protect 30% of its land and seas by 2030 in line with the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF);
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas none of the three Parliament committees responsible for giving a position on the regulation on nature restoration have issued positive opinions on the European Commission's proposal, including the PECH Committee, which rejected the Commission's legislative proposal, a rare occurrence in the European legislative process;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas the Action Plan should not hinder the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP) that seeks to guarantee the proper conservation and management of marine biological resources and that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 closed 87 areas, on the basis of a calculated probability of occurrence of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) without an analysis of the real conditions, to all bottom-fishing gear in the EU waters of the north-east Atlantic, representing a total area of 16 419 km2 and 17 % of the area between 400 and 800 metres deep;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas mobile bottom gear is responsible for catching 25% of European landings;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas various and highly critical reactions from Member States were voiced at the AGRIFISH Council meeting of 20 March 2023;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas on 15 September 2022 the Regional Government of Galicia initiated legal action in response to the Commission’s implementing act of, which aimed to close 87 sensitive zones to all bottom fishing gear in the EU waters of the North-East Atlantic;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas the scrutiny of the Action Plan was carried out by national parliaments in 8 Member States, and in particular a political dialogue was carried out by the French Senate and National Assembly and the Italian Chamber of Deputies provided a negative assessment;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C e (new)
Recital C e (new)
Ce. whereas shellfish, wild or cultivated, are important elements of coastal ecosystems, providing ecosystem services such as water filtration, nitrogen absorption and carbon storage, and whereas shellfish farming plots act as biodiversity hubs ; whereas a significant part of shellfish farming takes place in Natura 2000 areas; whereas some cultivation techniques entail dredging on farming plots at the end of a two to four years growing period, after which juvenile shellfish are immediately re-seeded on the seabed;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the recognition of well- managed recreational fishing as a sustainable blue economy sector;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes, like all stakeholders involved in fisheries and environmental policies, contribute to sustainable food security in the scope of blue economy and that healthy marine ecosystems benefit our health, society and economy, and are essential for the planet and the populations that rely on them;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Regarding the release of ammunitions and other contaminants into our oceans, particularly in the Baltic Sea, recalls its resolution on chemical residues in the Baltic Sea, based on Petitions Nos 1328/2019 and 0406/2020and the successful actions such as CHEMSEA, DAIMON and DAIMON 2 and urges the Commission and Member States to implement further practical actions to clean the ocean floor. considers, additionally, that they should enact legal measures to guarantee the safety of these waters from such dangers;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. regrets the poor timing and clear inter-linkage between the action plan to restore ecosystems and the regulation on nature restoration;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Recalls that the Action plan should be coherent with the objectives of the CFP that ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. underlines a general issue with the Commission on the principle of proportionality, the low legal quality of delegated acts, the over-transposition of international commitments as well as the lack of real consultation with stakeholders and lack of best scientific data to support the action plan;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the action plan should be coherent with the objectives of the CFP that ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of ensuring economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies;, and make best use of MSY to reduce dependency of the markets from third countries.
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets the lack of coherence between the title of the action plan and the proposals presented therein, which mainly focus on altering the fishing practices that affect species and habitats without addressing the potential for alignment between fishing techniques and practices and the protection or restoration of ecosystems; recalls the specific relevance of balancing restrictions for users and gains for nature to optimise legal security;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. emphasise the need to develop and support initiatives to restore marine ecosystems; with that aim, requests an financial support for scientific studies and data collection in marine ecosystems;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Iinsists on the fact that MPAs are diverse in terms of size, species, habitats and ecosystems targeted and should not be seen as uniform areas; considers, therefore, that the Commission’s action plan supports an oversimplifi-generalised approach, in particular by proposing a blanket ban on certain fishing gears, thuleading to a false image of MPAs giving the impression that all MPAs should be treated in the same way; c. Calls for a balance to be struck between the proposal to increase closures of traditional fishing areas, on the one hand, and maintaining fishing activity, on the other;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Recalls the lack of consideration given to 'other effective area-based conservation measures' (OECMs) to maximise the effects of measures in a dynamic, changing environment due to climate change;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. calls for a decarbonisation and environmental protection strategy that places greater emphasis on innovation rather than on eliminating fishing activity and pays equal attention to the three pillars of sustainability – environmental, social and economic – while simultaneously ensuring the preservation of retain skilled jobs within Europe;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on a comprehensive and actionable plan that does not jeopardise food security and sovereignty and that empowers fishers to fully utilise their quotas;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Nnotes the lack of perspective on the consequences of certain aspects of the action plan, which was published pointing out on one side the Commission’s calls to Member States to prohibit mobile fishing in the MPAs that are Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats Directive by the end of March 2024, while on the other side, in parallel and with the same deadline, requesting that Member States provide information on how they intend to ensure that by 2030 mobile bottom fishing is phased out in all MPAs without waiting, for instance, for scientific and socio-economic conclusions onf previous proposals;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has acknowledged that a blanket approach banning mobile bottom contacting fishing is not suitable to reach the objectives of the Action Plan;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Notes that a ban of bottom trawling in protected areas would also impact shellfish farming activities, dramatically for some countries, and could result in a 30% decrease of the EU production if implemented; asks Member States to carefully consider shellfish farming benefits for marine biodiversity and the specific characteristics of farmed shellfish dredging activities, assessing the overall ecological balance of these activities, when designing their conservation measures;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Sstresses that measures taken outside of the context of the Eel Regulation undermine the coherence of adopted policy; deplores the fact that Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1947 has restricted eel fisheries by introducing a six- of 30 January 2023 fixing for 2023 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, as well as fixing for 2023 and 2024 such fishing opportunities for certain deep-sea fish stocks restricted eel fisheries with a 6- month closureing period without proper stakeholder consultation ors and impact assessment on the socio-economic effects; considers, therefore, that an prior analysis of the species’ recovery ands well as its possible role in combating invasive species should be undertaken before implementing further restrictive measures, as announced in the action plan; _________________ 7 Council Regulation (EU) 2023/194 of 30 January 2023 fixing for 2023 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, as well as fixing for 2023 and 2024 such fishing opportunities for certain deep- sea fish stocks, OJ L 28, 31.1.2023, p. 1.
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Considers the opposition between the development of the fishing industry and the protection of marine biodiversity to be a dead end, and believes that both can be achieved in a balanced way as stated by Member States representatives after the presentation of the Action Plan;
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Welcomes that finally a special dialogue group between DG ENV, DG MARE, the Member States and interested stakeholders has been created; considers that the dim of the dialogue group should be to facilitate knowledge and possible discussions between fisheries and environmental communities, as well as to give Member States a platform for transparency and dialogue on the implementation of their roadmaps;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes the Commission’s embarrassing lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, due to its many contradictory statements, particularly those made within Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries; considers that this has had a damaging impact on many sectors of the fishing industry, such as the brown shrimp sector, at a time when the uncertainties linked to the current crises are weighing heavily on their morale; the real consequences of EU’ss communication on the action plan are a further reduction in the level of trust of brown shrimp family businesses;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls on DG ENV to listen more closely to the specific characteristics of the fisheries sector before getting involved in joint initiatives with DG MARE;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Supports the Commission President’s proposal, in her 2023 State of the Union address, that every new piece of legislation should undergo a competitiveness check; supports the development of a modelling tool by the Commission by the end of 2023 to incorporate the concept of “natural capital” in economic decisions; requests that the action plan and fisheries-related proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check on their socio- economic impact and their effect on coastal communities;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Supports the Commission President’s proposal, in her 2023 State of the Union address, that every new piece of legislation should undergo a competitiveness check; requests that the action plan and fisheries-related proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check on their socio- economic impact and their effect on coastal communities and the recreational fisheries sector;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Rregrets the fact that the action plan is not accompanied by a socio-economic study, impact assessment or intermediary report and that it does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions; calls therefore for a socioeconomic impact study of the proposed measures taking into account the view of the stakeholders, in particular with regard to the ban on bottom fishing in protected areas, and calls for all necessary means, including incentives and compensatory mechanisms, to be put in place for a just and balanced transition;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Ccalls for an aAction plan that, along with the CFP, should contributes to productivity growth, and a decent standard of living in the fisheries sector, including the small-scale fisheries sector, ands well as stable markets, and thatshould ensures the availability of food without compromising food security or theand sovereignty gap (in terms of seafood) and that allows fishers to make full use of the fishing quotas allocated to them;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the Commission’s call for data collection on the impact of recreational fisheries, but underlines the need to also consider the economic and social impacts of sustainable recreational fishing activities; considers that recreational fisheries may offer excellent opportunities to foster the “Citizen Science”-approach;
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Cconsiders it essential that any restrictions, whether based on the action plan or not,the BBNJ agreement to be an important victory at international level for the protection of the oceans; regrets, however, that the action plan does not give more support to Member States in their good practices by not insisting enough on the need to include the need for reciprocity in international actions; therefore considers it essential that any restrictions based or not on the action plan should be automatically mirrored in the case of products imported from non-EUthird countries, especially given that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes, to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, ands well as a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses that mobile bottom-fishing gear catches account for 25 % of the total European catches and that effective measures on bottom trawling at EU level should not lead to an increase inof imports, especially and even less so if foreign fleets use bottom trawling gear;s
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Notes that, according to the Commission, tangible progress towards more sustainable fisheries on the ground has been achieved over the last decades thanks to the CFP; highlights however, that this recovery has come at high costs for most fishing communities; welcome, by way of example, that in 2009 the EU had only five fish stocks harvested sustainably and in 2022 there were over 60;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25b. Highlights that according to Commission data that fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic are generally within healthy ranges, and that a particularly positive example is the Bay of Biscay, which, in the latest assessment from 2021, became the first EU sea area with no stocks overfished;
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls that it rejected the delegated act on SIOFA after providing the Commission of several opportunities to reconsider redrafting it in accordance with Union Law; demands that the Commission pay closer attention to the quality of its delegated acts and reaffirms its commitment to scrutinising any incoming delegated or implementing acts linked to the aAction pPlan;
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Notes with concern that the Commission is relying increasingly in the exercise of its regulatory powers on formally non-binding instruments, such as communications, which are commonly referred to as 'soft law'; considers that any uncertainty between the intended meaning of the legal norms and their expression is likely to affect legal certainty and raise legal questions regarding institutional balance, as well as the limits and exercise of EU competences; believes therefore that Commission communications should not be used to put forward binding measures;