Activities of Caroline ROOSE related to 2023/2124(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries
Amendments (86)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 3 May 2022 titled 'Toward a sustainable blue economy in the EU: the role of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors'1a, _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0135.
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
Citation 4 b (new)
– having regard its resolution of 21 January 2021 titled 'More fish in the seas? Measures to promote stock recovery above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), including fish recovery areas and marine protected areas'1a _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0017.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 c (new)
Citation 4 c (new)
– having regard to the IPBES 2019 report titled 'Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services',
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 d (new)
Citation 4 d (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives 1a, _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0277.
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 e (new)
Citation 4 e (new)
– having regard to the 2021 ICES report entitled 'EU request on how management scenarios to reduce mobile bottom fishing disturbance on seafloor habitats affect fisheries landing and value. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021',
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 f (new)
Citation 4 f (new)
– having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation (COM(2021)583),
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 g (new)
Citation 4 g (new)
– having regard to the 2023 ICES report entitled 'EU additional request on mitigation measures to reduce by-catches of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in the Bay of Biscay. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2023',
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 h (new)
Citation 4 h (new)
– having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) 1d , _________________ 1d OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19.
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 i (new)
Citation 4 i (new)
– having regard to the IUCN Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, which sets out 6 categories of protected areas,
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 j (new)
Citation 4 j (new)
– having regard to Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 which requires Member States to use transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature, when allocating fishing opportunities and to endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective gear or using techniques with a reduced environmental impact,
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 k (new)
Citation 4 k (new)
– having regard to the New Economics Foundation (NEF) report of March 2021 titled 'Valuing the impacts of potential ban on bottom-contact fishing in EU marine protected areas',
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 l (new)
Citation 4 l (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 9 May 2023 on Co-Management of Fisheries in the EU and the contribution of the fisheries sector for the implementation of management measures1d, _________________ 1d Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0132.
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 m (new)
Citation 4 m (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2022 on the implementation of Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 1a, _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0226.
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 n (new)
Citation 4 n (new)
– having regard to the CNRS studies entitled “Underprotected Marine Protected Areas in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot” by Claudet et al., 2020 and “Critical gaps in the protection of the second largest exclusive economic zone in the world” by Claudet et al., 2021,
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 o (new)
Citation 4 o (new)
– having regard to the Special Report No 26/2020 of the European Court of Auditors entitled ‘EU protection is wide but not deep’,
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 p (new)
Citation 4 p (new)
– having regard to the August Climate Bulletin by the EU Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) published on 5 September 2023,
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 q (new)
Citation 4 q (new)
– having regard to the 2022 Commission Staff Working Document on Criteria and guidance for protected areas designations (SWD(2022) 23);
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11
Citation 11
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas there are currently up to 23 EU legislative texts on nature restoration and over 40 texts taking into account communications, strategies and regulations, and numerous legislative texts on the environment and fisheries; whereas in the last 10 years alone 26 legal acts and international agreements on the socio- economic dimension of fisheries and 80 communications, strategies and preparatory documents on the socio- economic dimension of fisheries have been adopted;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas in 2022 more than 200 scientists signed an open letter calling for a ban on bottom trawling and other industrial extractive activities in EU MPAs;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the future of food security will depend on our capacity to tackle nature loss and the growing impacts of climate change;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas there is a strong scientific consensus that MPAs can be beneficial to fisheries because of their spillover effect and their positive effects on recruitment, for example through the protection of reproduction sites, juveniles and big mother fish with high reproductive capacities, as shown in various MPAs across the EU;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas the 2023 European- average temperature for summer was the fifth warmest for the summer seasons; whereas in summer 2023 there have been record-breaking high sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the North Atlantic and for the global ocean including marine heatwaves in several areas around Europe; whereas August 2023 is estimated to have been around 1.5°C warmer than the preindustrial average for 1850-1900; whereas North Atlantic sea surface temperatures broke the previous daily record on 5 August 2023 and almost every day in August since has remained above this level, reaching a new record of 25.19°C on 31 August;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deplores the fact that, despite the EU fisheries sector’s great efforts and progresefforts towards protecting marine ecosystems and making them sustainable, the oceans are still subject to overfishing, climate change, acidification and pollution through pollutants such as nitrites, plastics and other marine litter or waste from land- based activities, which areseveral of those drivers being beyond the control of fishers and poseing a significant threat to their livelihoods and marine ecosystems;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that, according to IPBES, overfishing is the main driver of marine biodiversity loss worldwide; recalls that the fisheries sector is highly dependent on thriving marine ecosystems, considers therefore that reducing the impact of fisheries on the marine environment is key for the survival of the fisheries sector in the long term;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the Commissioner Sinkevičius’s action plan lacks a coherent approachcould further build coherence with the other Commission priorities and strategies, such as ensuring food security, in line with the objectives of the farm to fork strategy, decarbonisation, the strategic autonomy of the EU and a level playing field with non-EU countries, as well as the fight against rising prices, enhancing the social dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and strengthening economic growth and employment;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. RecallWelcomes that the action plan ishould 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 an ecosystem-based approach 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;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets the lack of coherence between the title ofWelcomes that the action plan and the proposals presented therein, which mainly focus on altering thenot only propose a reduction of fishing practices that affect species and seabed habitats withoutbut also addressinges the potential for alignment between fishing techniques and practintroducing additional measures to boost selectivity, including innovations to improve the selectivity of fishing gear and devices, and the protection or restoration of ecosystems well as measures to reduce the catches of juveniles and bycatch of sensitive species;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses, for example, that scientific studies show that increasing the mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes would enable to leave the youngest fish in the water, and therefore increase the chances for fish populations to reproduce, leading to higher yields for fishers and higher landings per unit effort;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Insists on the fact that incidental catches of sensitive marine species, including those listed under Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC, that are a result of fishing, have to be reduced and, where possible, eliminated so that they do not represent a threat to the conservation status of these species;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Welcomes the Commission’s calls to reduce bycatch of sensitive species; highlights in particular the urgent need to act to reduce bycatch of common dolphins and porpoises in the Bay of Biscay, by establishing short-term closures of certain fishing areas combined with acoustic deterrent devices and the improvement of monitoring systems, in line with scientific advice; recalls that financial compensations and incentives are available under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) to mitigate the socio-economic impacts of those measures;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists 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 action plan supports an oversimplified approach, in particular by proposing a blanket ban on certain fishing gear, thus giving the impression that all MPAs should be treated in the same way;welcomes that, while acknowledging the diversity of MPAs and conservation measures, the Action Plan recognises that some fishing techniques are incompatible with Marine Protected Areas , 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 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses the current lack of compliance with the Habitats Directive notably its Article 6; recalls that MPAs are required to have management measures in line with the conservation objectives of those sites and that the Commission has opened procedures against certain Member States for not fulfilling their obligations under the Habitats Directive;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that MPAs and all strictly protected areas are not an end in themselves and that their designation as protected areas will notshould be accompanied by management plans as well as resources for their monitoring, control and surveillance; stresses that MPAs designation should not prevent EU and third countries from adopting ecosystem- based and effective fisheries management measures around them, notably to prevent bad practices, including by foreign fleets, such as the Chinese fleet around the Galápagos sanctuary;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls its resolution expressing strong support for the EU targets of protecting at least 30 % of the EU’s marine and terrestrial areas, covering a diverse range of ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, peatlands, grasslands and coastal ecosystems, and of strictly protecting at least 10 % of the EU’s marine and terrestrial areas; stresses that these protected areas should create an ecologically coherent and representative network, building on existing protected areas; underlines that in addition to increasing protected areas, the quality of protected areas must be ensured, including through sufficient funding and the implementation of clear and effective conservation;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Stresses that Marine Protected Areas can contribute to deliver benefits for marine ecosystems and local economic activities; recalls that effectively managed and sufficiently protected areas minimise incidental catches of sensitive species, protect fish spawning and nursery areas and juveniles, and reduce impacts on sensitive habitats, in particular the seabed;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Regrets that many Member States have designated an important number of MPAs over the past decades without paying sufficient attention to their level of protection and effective management; calls on the EU and its Member States to consider redesigning their map of MPAs based on quality criteria, including declassifying potentially irrelevant MPAs that only exist on paper where needed, and to build science-based ecological networks of effective and sufficiently protected areas, including no takes zones, that deliver for ocean, fisher and the society as a whole;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Deplores the fact that some Member States have come forward with an ambiguous definition of what strict protection in MPAs should be, thus opening the door to economic activities that are not compatible with the science- based objectives of strict protection; welcomes and supports the definition of 'strictly protected areas' as 'those fully and legally protected areas designated to conserve and/or restore the integrity of biodiversity-rich natural areas with their underlying ecological structure and supporting natural environmental processes; considers that natural processes are therefore left essentially undisturbed from human pressures and threats to the area’s overall ecological structure and functioning, independently of whether those pressures and threats are located inside or outside the 'strictly protected area';
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 e (new)
Paragraph 7 e (new)
7e. Recalls that MPAs have been initially developed for conservation objectives and not as fish management tools; emphasises that when a certain type of fishing gear is prohibited in a Marine Protected Area it immediately benefits fishers that use low-impact fishing techniques;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 f (new)
Paragraph 7 f (new)
7f. Highlights that Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) should be designed with coastal communities, fishers, scientists and civil society; calls on Member States to involve them at each stage of the process, from the designation to the management of the areas, and to implement co-management approaches;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 g (new)
Paragraph 7 g (new)
7g. Notes that scientific studies are showing that MPAs are delivering environmental and socio-economic benefits, that these benefits increase in the medium and long-term; considers that fishing restrictions should be accompanied by incentives for the transition to low impact fishing in order to accompany some segments that are impacted;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 h (new)
Paragraph 7 h (new)
7h. Recalls the need to prohibit environmentally damaging industrial extractive activities in marine protected areas, including mining, oil, gas and harmful industrial fishing techniques, in line with the IUCN guidelines, in order to protect ecosystems and traditional activities of local communities;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 i (new)
Paragraph 7 i (new)
7i. Invites the EU and its Member States to expand the network of fish stock recovery areas under the CFP and under the GFCM, especially where there is clear evidence of heavy concentrations of fish below minimum conservation reference size or of spawning grounds and to increase their level of protection where needed; calls on the GFCM to draw on the successful example of the ‘Jabuka/Pomo Pit’ fish stock recovery area and on the GFCM minimum standards for fisheries restricted areas;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 j (new)
Paragraph 7 j (new)
7j. Recalls that bottom trawling is considered as one of the fishing techniques that has the highest negative impact on the environment, mostly due to the high rate of bycatches, the high rate of juvenile catches and its impact on seabed ecosystems and marine productivity;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 k (new)
Paragraph 7 k (new)
7k. Notes that bottom trawling is one of the most used fishing techniques in the EU, that a large share of the fish consumed in the EU is fished using this technique and that reducing the impact of bottom trawling should be done carefully, be properly planned by governments and based on the best available scientific advice;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion that closing fishing zones to bottom trawlers, and other high impacting fishing practices, is not simply a matter of moving fishing vessels so that they can continue to fish elsewhere, as this approach fails to take into accou but needs to be accompanied with a comprehensive and coherent approach and policies in terms of maritime spatial planning, fishing effort management, among other things, the fishers’ understanding of the seabed and the presence of othernd science-based TACs; considers that this approach should be part of a just transition process for impacted coastal communities and take account of fishing vessels in adjacent areas which could cause an overlap and lead to a localised overexploitation of resources and the deterioration of working conditions;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Welcomes the fact that the Action Plan calls on Member States to progressively phase out bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas and to mitigate the effects of bottom trawling on seabed ecosystems; stresses that long-term visibility and financial support is needed to ensure a just transition that leaves no fisher behind, considers that the same objectives should be defended at international level; recalls that Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal agreement mentions that any sustainable use within protected areas must be fully consistent with conservation objectives;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Calls for the EU to launch and fund scientific research programmes to map carbon-rich marine habitats in EU waters to serve as a basis for designating such areas as strictly protected marine protected areas, in order to protect and restore marine carbon sinks in line with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and to protect and restore ecosystems, in particular those on the seabed, in line with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, thereby protecting them from human activities that could disturb and release carbon into the water column, such as bottom-contacting fishing operations;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Considers that the ban on bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas should not only be seen as an objective but also as a tool to support the reduction of the use of bottom trawling and its replacement by low impact fishing techniques, as closing areas to bottom trawling would allow low impact fisheries to fish there more easily or would allow experimentation to take place;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Calls for the EU to urgently tackle the detrimental impacts on the climate, seabed integrity, fish populations and sensitive species (as bycatch) of fishing techniques such as demersal seine, bottom-contacting gear, drift nets, or fish aggregating devices (FAD), including by limiting their use;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. Recalls its position on the Access to Waters Regulation, calling for a ban on demersal seine (Danish and Scottish Seine) in French waters, as demanded by regional fisheries organisations; calls on Members States and the EU to prohibit the use of demersal seine in all EU waters;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 f (new)
Paragraph 8 f (new)
8f. Calls for fishing vessels above 25 metres in length to be prohibited from fishing in the EU waters up to 12 nautical miles from the coast, measured from the baselines of the territorial waters;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 g (new)
Paragraph 8 g (new)
8g. Recalls that Member States must fully implement Article 17 of the Common Fishery Policy when allocating fishing opportunities; calls on Member States to allocate fishing quotas on the basis of transparent and objective criteria based on the social and environmental performance of fishing fleets and to implement Article 17 as a tool to incentivise low impact responsible fishing practices in order to replace high impacting fishing practices;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. NoteRegrets the numerous declarations and clear statements by Member State representatives criticising the action plan and the associated uncertainties and rejecting the ban on bottom trawling in EU MPAs; stresses that the Action Plan represents an opportunity for Member States to prepare a well-planned, organised, medium- and long-term transition to low impact fishing;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Takes into accountnote of the legal procedures taken by Member States or regional authorities, such as the Xunta de Galicia, at the Court of Justice of the European Union against measures linked to the action plan, underlining the lack of proportionthe implementation of the Deep Sea Fisheries Regulation regarding the closure of certain areas between 400 and 800 m of depth where vulnerable ecosystems are located; recalls that this legislation was elaborated by the co- legislators and adopted through the EU’s legislative procedure; highlights that the European Parliament has joined the Commission in defending the validity of certain measuresthe Deep Sea fisheries regulation;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8
Subheading 8
The Commisslegal implication’s lack of clarity on the legal interpretation of itof the Commission’s action plan
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that, although the action plan is not legally binding, its implementation will entail significant socio-economic costs for Member States and their fleets, as it contains 90 measures in the form of regulations, guidance, analyses, roadmaps, studies, reports and initiatives; recalls that the Action Plan mainly foresees a better implementation of existing and adopted legislation;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Regrets that Member States, stakeholders and parliamentarians created confusion regarding the legally- binding nature of the action plan, pretending that the Commission wanted to unilaterally impose a ban on bottom trawling in EU waters; notes that this confusion led to tensions;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. SupportRecalls the Commission President’s proposal, in her 2023 State of the Union address, stating that for 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 is conducted;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Regrets the factWelcomes that the aAction pPlan 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 transitionswas preceded by an open targeted consultation as well as by independent scientific advice including specific trade-off analyses between fisheries value and the seafloor impact;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for an action plan that, along with the CFP, contributes to productivity growth, a decent standard of living in the fisheries sector, including the small-scale fisheries sector, and stable markets, and that ensures the availability of food without compromising food security or the sovereignty gapand food sovereignty; recalls, in this regard, that the future of food security will depend on healthy ecosystems as well as on our capacity to mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts; urges the Commission and Member States to improve the resilience of marine ecosystems and use all available legislative and administrative tools to mitigate the climate crisis and its impact;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Recalls that the objectives of the Action Plan and the CFP should also be pursued outside of EU waters where the EU fleet is active; calls on the EU to fully implement the external dimension of the CFP and the principle of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD);
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers it essential that any restrictions, whether based on the action plan or not, should be automatically mirrored in the case of products imported from non-EU countries, especially given that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes, to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, and a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators; calls on the EU, for example, to introduce bans on imports from tropical shrimp trawlers fleets which do not use turtle excluder devices;
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. StressNotes that mobile bottom-fishing gear catches account for 25 % of total European catches and; recalls that reducing fishing effort and implementing effective conservation measures does not lead to a reduction of economic profitability, as it leads to significant increases in fish biomass and abundance, as well as a reduction in fuel use and costs reductions; is of the opinion that effective measures on bottom trawling at EU level should not lead to an increase in imports, especially if foreign fleets use bottom trawling gear; considers that the same objectives should be defended at international level and that the EU should lead by example;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Welcomes the measures proposed in the Action Plan to improve regional cooperation; calls on the Commission to come forward with ambitious mandates in Regional Sea Conventions and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), notably to ensure the conservation of endangered species, vulnerable marine ecosystems, and the protection of juveniles;
Amendment 315 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Calls for a phase out of the use of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs); calls on the Commission to promote the reduction of the total number of FADs used by EU tuna fleets and support spatial closures in Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs);
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)
Paragraph 24 c (new)
24c. Welcomes the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies which marks a major step forward for ocean sustainability by prohibiting harmful fisheries subsidies for fisheries targeting overfished resources and responsible for IUU fishing; as a next step, urges action addressing equally harmful subsidies that encourage overcapacity which lead to ocean depletion worldwide;
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 10 a (new)
Subheading 10 a (new)
Tackling other pressures to marine biodiversity
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 d (new)
Paragraph 24 d (new)
24d. Welcomes the Commission’s approach for a sustainable blue economy and its strategy to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); calls on the Commission to revise the strategy to extend the ecosystem-based approach beyond fisheries management to all sectors of the blue economy and to remain within planetary boundaries, including renewable energy and extractive industries, as part of an overarching legal and strategic framework;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 e (new)
Paragraph 24 e (new)
24e. Expresses its deep concern regarding the impact of oil and gas extraction on the marine environment and on traditional activities such as fisheries; reiterates its call to phase out oil and gas extraction to achieve international climate commitments;
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 f (new)
Paragraph 24 f (new)
24f. Reiterates its support for a moratorium, including at the International Seabed Authority, on deep- seabed mining until such time as the effects of deep-sea mining on the marine environment, biodiversity and human activities at sea have been studied and researched sufficiently and deep-seabed mining can be managed to ensure no marine biodiversity loss nor degradation of marine ecosystems; calls on the EU and its Member States to commit not to source minerals from the deep-seabed, to exclude such minerals from the EU supply chains, and not to finance deep- seabed mining activities;
Amendment 321 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11
Subheading 11
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Supports the fisheries sector’s ongoing efforts to improve fishing techniques and reduce its environmental impact without waiting for the Commission’s action plans; highlights the positive examples of restoring species stocks in protected areas while maintaining fishing activities such as low-impact fisheries, thanks to the major role played by fisheries stakeholders in MPAs management;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11 a (new)
Subheading 11 a (new)
Governance
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Welcomes the creation of a special dialogue group between the Commission services, Member States representatives, administrations, representatives of the fisheries sectors and civil society in order to facilitate knowledge sharing, cooperation, technical discussions on implementing current legislation and a transparent dialogue on drafting and implementing Member States’ roadmaps;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26