Activities of Benoît BITEAU related to 2020/2273(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives (debate)
Amendments (40)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas EU fishing, aquaculture and processing sectors need to subscribe to the highest standards of environmental and social sustainability throughout the entire value chain, including labour rights and to a lesser extent animal health and welfare, and provide high-quality seafood products, thus playing a fundamental role in food security andin the European Union and to a smaller extent to the nutritional wellbeing to an ever increasing population; whereas by restricting fishing, a number ofthe most destructive fishing techniques, several UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are jeopardiscan be aligned;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas EU fishers and fish farmers play an essential role across the Union and must continue providing social and economic support to many coastal and inland communities while adhering to Union environmental legislation;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas fishers, guardians of the sea, are present on a daily basis, ought to alert the authorities whenever they see any environmental degradation and are takingideally taking further steps to conserve the marine environment;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the EU Biodiversity Strategy does not take into account at all that there have been considerable improvements in EU fish populations; whedue to the implementation of improved management measureas in the north-east Atlantic there has been a 50 % increase in the number of fish at sea in only 10 years and overfishing in the EU is at an all-time low, whereas almost 100 % of the landings from EU- regulated stocks for which the respective scientific assessments are available come from stocks fished at the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels, whereas in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea fish stocks remain overexploited;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas scientific studies on the subject have raised concerns about the long-term negative impact that certain techniques used by fisheries, such as bottom-contacting gear and fish aggregating devices (FADs), have on stocks, ocean biodiversity and the marine environment;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas light pollution alter the natural night lighting levels for humans, animals and plants, thus negatively affecting biodiversity in the sea and deep sea, lakes, inland waterways and coastal areas;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that effectively managed fished populations are often more productive than non-fished ones; stresses, therefore, the fact that, in certain cases, closing fishing areas might notcan be compatible with social welfare and economic prosperity – essential components of sustainability – and with the SDGs on food security and poverty alleviation, emphasises that international scientific studies clearly indicate that protected areas provide spawning grounds and shelter for juveniles, and that the cost of non-action could be much higher;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that marine protected areas (MPAs) are a tool, not an objuseful and effective per setool; underlines the fact that setting a protection objective through the means of a conservation figure (i.e. a percentage) is irrelevantshould be based on the best available scientific advice, since the most important thingobjective is to ensure that the established protection zones truly cover anare fully implemented and truly cover an sufficiently large area with an ecological value that needs to be protected;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Highlights that, when successful, marine protected areas offer large socio- economic benefits, especially for coastal communities and the fisheries and tourism sector, and that MPAs can perform key ecological functions for the reproduction of fish stocks (providing spawning grounds and nurseries) and improve their resilience;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that setting abstract, arbitrary, rigid, unrealistic annumerical targets based non- achievable numerical targets undermines the best available scientific advice are an example of good legislation and the credibility of lawmakers;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that in addition to expanding protected areas, the strengthening and to efficiently implementing existing closed areas would be much more efficientremains effective, necessary and meaningful;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Urges Member States to expedite the development and submission of Joint Recommendations for the management of fisheries in their marine protected areas under Article 11 of the Common Fisheries Policy; Calls on the Commission to follow scientific advice when assessing proposals and to systematically reject inadequate measures, including the use of destructive fishing gears inside marine protected areas;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of including in the EU Biodiversity Strategy ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ provided for by the Convention on Biological Diversity1 ; considers that these ‘other measures’ sometimes offer a higher level of protection than those provided for by an MPAas well as measures to counter the negative effects of noise and light pollution on marine biodiversity; _________________ 1https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop- 14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 2 a (new)
Subheading 2 a (new)
No take zones
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Emphasises the importance and usefulness of no-take zones where all catches and economic activities are banned;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Welcomes that 10% of European waters will benefit from a high level of protection, including areas where all catches and all economic activities are prohibited (no-take zones);
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 2 b (new)
Subheading 2 b (new)
Deep seabed mining
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Stresses that the deep sea is home to the greatest diversity of species and ecosystems on Earth, provides critical environmental goods and services, including long-term carbon sequestration, and is characterized by environmental conditions that make it highly vulnerable to human disturbance; scientists have warned that deep seabed mining will cause biodiversity loss, both by destroying seabed life where mining would take place, with little prospect of recovery, and by generating plumes, light, toxins and noise that could impact both benthic and mesopelagic marine life far beyond actual mining sites; and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls for protection of the ocean, building resilience and restoration of degraded ecosystems and sustainable consumption and production of resources.
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
6e. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish a moratorium in EU waters and to support an international moratorium on deep seabed mining, to refrain from adopting regulations for deep-sea mineral exploitation including by the International Seabed Authority, to cease subsidising licences for mineral prospecting and extraction in areas beyond national jurisdiction, to cease funding for the development of seabed mining technology; and to not issue exploitation or new exploration contracts including for mining national continental shelves unless and until the environmental, social and economic risks are comprehensively understood; deep seabed mining can be managed to prevent the loss of marine biodiversity, ensure the resilience of and prevent degradation of marine ecosystems; the free, prior, informed consent from potentially affected communities is obtained; efforts to develop circular economies and better materials resource use are underway; and the reform of the structure and functioning of the International Seabed Authority to ensure a transparent, accountable, inclusive and environmentally responsible decision- making is achieved.
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the importance of proper and inclusive spatial planning, which takes sufficiently into account the sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture, pointing to the need for allocating space to existing and new fishing grounds and aquaculture farm as well as the status and sensitivity of habitats, pointing to the need for a transparent and participate mechanism following the Marine Spatial Planning Directive for allocating space to all economic stakeholders;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) provides for a robust regulatory framework with sophisticated tools, which has set down the dates of publication of specific reports: the Commission is to report to Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the CFP by 31 December 2022; recalls that Article 8 of the CFP on Fish Stock Recovery Areas has not been implemented as of today;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that, according to the new Technical Measures Regulation2 , the Commission must submit a report to Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2020, and th[1] that covers the taking and landing of fisheries resources as well as the operat ionly in cases where of fishing gear and there is evidence that the objectives and targets have not been met, the Commission may propose measures; _________________ 2nteraction of fishing activities with marine ecosystems, the Commission must submit a report to Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2020; OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 105.
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Expresses its deep regret over the obvious discriminatory treatment of fisheries compared to that of agricultureHighlights that apart from fisheries also other anthropogenic impacts such as from agriculture, IUU fishing, maritime transport, offshore oil and gas drilling, submarine pipelines and pollution caused by industrial, urban and plastic waste have a detrimental impact on the marine environment; urges to address all such impact in a holistic manner; welcomes the fact the proposed strategy outlines that ‘the progress towards the targets will be under constant review, and adjustment if needed, to mitigate against undue impact on biodiversity, food security and farmers’ competitiveness’; notes, however, that this sentence, which is a necessary safety net, is clearly discriminatory since it fails to mention fishers and aquaculture producers;
Amendment 132 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Amendment 139 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Strongly denounces the excessivNotes the focus on fishing and its connection with the failure to achieve the good ecological status in marine ecosystems and the lack of consideration given to other sources of pressure and degradation, such as oil, gas, dredging or shipping;
Amendment 144 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Strongly denouncNotes the fact that the strategy accusehighlights bottom trawling, as ‘the most damaging activity to the seabed’, without any in-depth analysis to back it up;
Amendment 150 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that gears and techniques should not be demonised; recalls that while bottom trawling can also enhance biodiversity in certain sandy seabeds and thatis one of the most common fishing gears in Europe it ihas one of the most common and most regulated fishing gears in Europevertheless a highly detrimental impact on marine ecosystems; stresses that it is the only viablea way to catch many key species that we eat and that almost all of them for which scientific assessments exist are fished at MSY levels and that manyseveral of them are Marine Stewardship Council certified, recalls nevertheless that bottom trawling has been identified by FAO as the gear type that contributes most to annuals levels of discards;
Amendment 157 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 163 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers that ecosystem services provided by certain aquaculture activities, of which the maintenance of biodiversity is an important one, must be taken into consideration and supported, especially low-impact aquaculture;
Amendment 165 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes proposals to reduce and limit the use of pesticides and other chemicals to protect biodiversity; underlines the impact of agriculture on marine ecosystems; calls for a proper assessment in the of the ecotoxicity of pesticides in marine environments before any market authorisation; recalls that the overuse of nitrogenic fertilisation is one of the main driver of the eutrophication of aquatic environments strongly believes, however, that such measures should be pre-assessed diligently and should include cumulative impact assessments taking in account environmental costs and benefits;
Amendment 167 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Embraces the ambitions set out in the Water Framework Directive3 and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive4 ; recalls in this respect that the 2020 objective to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for European Seas has not been achieved by 2020; highlights that the river and basin management plans are supposed to achieve the objectives of the Water Framework Directive by 2027; highlights that aquaculture can play a role in restoring degraded marine and freshwater ecosystems; _________________ 3 OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p.1. 4 OJ L 164 25.6.2008, p. 19.
Amendment 172 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses the importance of adequate funding, including for the artisanal component of the fishing sector in the transition towards more selective and less damaging fishing techniques, through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund in order to achieve the EU’s goals on biodiversity;
Amendment 178 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes the high level of ambition when setting targets; strongly recommends, however, that such targets should not be legally binding, and that they should be set on a case-by-case basrequire follow-up action to ensure their implementation is, adapted to local specificities and to the level required to protect nature and biodiversity; recommends that such targets should also take into account socio-economic considerations and the need to ensure a long-term resilience of the natural systems that provide the basis for the fisheries and aquaculture value chain, be proportionate with the objective pursued and have a solid scientific basis; calls on the Commission to develop a robust reporting process with criteria to count officially marine protected areas against international targets only once they are actively managed;
Amendment 187 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the importance of the constructive, effective and equal consultation of all relevant stakeholders, including fishers and aquaculture producers, in any decision related to biodiversity; recalls that the success of MPAs and other protected areas lies in them being accepted and embraced by fishers, coastal communities and other stakeholders; calls on the Commission to consider the need to facilitate the active participation of the fisheries sector, including its artisanal component, the local communities and all relevant stakeholders in the design, management and monitoring of MPAs when drafting the Action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems;
Amendment 192 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses the need to conduct comprehensive impact assessments that take into account the impact on small-scale fishers and small and medium-sized enterprises in particular and) that consider the accomplishments achieved to date and the availability of alternative products, economic impacts alongside effects on food security and food safety, with a view to guaranteeing the preservation of biodiversity together withas a basis for the competitiveness of the seafood value chain;
Amendment 201 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. NotWelcomes the Commission’s remark that in order ‘to have healthy and resilient societies we need to give nature the space it needs’; stresses, however, that if we are to have healthy and resilient societies not only do we need to give nature the space it needs, but also fishermen and aquaculture producers the space they need;
Amendment 204 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26