Activities of Asger CHRISTENSEN 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
Amendments (23)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
Citation 4 b (new)
– having regard to the Commission communication of 10 October 2007 entitled ‘An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union’ (COM(2007)0575),
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 c (new)
Citation 4 c (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)1b, _________________ 1b OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 d (new)
Citation 4 d (new)
– having regard to Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning1c (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive), _________________ 1c OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135.
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 e (new)
Citation 4 e (new)
– having regard to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy 1c, _________________ 1c OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p.1.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 f (new)
Citation 4 f (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 3 May 2022 entitled ‘Toward a sustainable blue economy in the EU: the role of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors’1d, _________________ 1d Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0135.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deplores the fact that, despite the EU fisheries sector’s great efforts and progress towards protecting marine ecosystems and making them sustainable,at the oceans are still subject to climate change, acidification and pollution through pollutants such as nitrites, plastics and other marine litter or waste from land- based activities, which are beyond the control of fishers and pose a significant threat to their livelihoods and marine ecosystems;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the efforts made by EU fishers towards making fisheries even more sustainable and contributing to the protection and sustainable use of marine ecosystems;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the Commissioner Sinkevičius’s aAction pPlan lacks a coherent approach with other Commission priorities and strategies, such as ensuring food security, the strategic autonomy of the EU and a level playing field with non-EU countries, as well as the fight against; is of the opinion that considerations such as rising prices, enhancing the social dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and strengthening economic growth and employment, have not sufficiently been considered in the Action Plan;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the aAction pPlan 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;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls the need to seek cooperation with other maritime activities in order to avoid conflicts and foster synergies, in particular with marine energy infrastructures, as promoted in the Directive on maritime spatial planning6e; _________________ 6e Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning.
Amendment 150 #
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, whicha holistic set of proposals in the Action Plan, as it mainly focuses 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;
Amendment 166 #
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 supporpresents 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; 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 otd approach where the restrictions introduced in the MPA must reflect the conservation objectives of said area and should ensure the effective participation of fishers;
Amendment 177 #
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 notcannot be the sole effort pursued by the EU especially in relation to preventing bad practices by foreign fleets, such as the Chinese fleet around the Galápagos sanctuary; calls for further efforts to be made to address activities detrimental to Ocean protections, including by fleets of third countries, such as the Chinese fleet;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion that closing fishing zrestrictiones ton bottom trawlers is not simply a matter of moving fishing vessels so that they can continue to fishthe activity elsewhere, as thissuch an approach fails to take into account, among other things, the fishers’ understanding of the seabed and the presence of other fishing vessels in adjacentredistribution of fishing vessels creating increased pressures in other fishing areas, which could cause an overlap and lead to a localised overexploitation of resourceider knowledge of the seabed including practical experience from fishers and the deterioration of working conditions;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the multiplicationre has been several of initiatives within and outside of the action plan concerning the same fishing technique bringcreating a patchwork of initiatives and puts into question the coherence and predictability of the Commission’s actions, with its desire to implement a total ban on a certain fishing technique being diluted in a series of measuresactions that will be taken at EU- level;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. StressesIs of the opinion that measures taken outside the context of the Eel Regulation may undermine the coherence of adopted policy; deplores the ftherefore, expresses deep concern in relation to the non- holistic approacth thataken in Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1947 has restricted eel fisheries by introducing a six-month closure period without proper stakeholder consultation or an impact assessment onconsidering a full package of measures in other policy areas as well as appropriate compensation, including measures taking into account the socio-economic effects; considers, therefore, that an analysis of the species’ recovery and 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 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes the numerous declarations and clear statements by Member State representatives criticisingraising clear concerns with the action plan and the associated uncertainties and rejecting the ban onespecially questions the too simplistic approach taken by the Commission in relation to bottom trawling restrictions in MPAs;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes the Commission’s embarrassingwith concern the lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, due to its many contradictory statements, particularly those made withstatements made during its presentation in 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 moralenot brought clarity and stability for the fishing sector;
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Regrets the conflat the communicating statements made withinon from the Commission and, in particular, betweenfrom the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and the Directorate- General for Environment, has included conflicting statements regarding the binding effects of the action plan;
Amendment 323 #
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, thanks to; supports further efforts to boost co- management arrangements where local actors takes responsibility for a sustainable management as well investing more in research, innovation and development of new fishing gears and techniques; commends in this regard the major role already played by fisheries stakeholders;
Amendment 330 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Regrets that the proposed action plan comes at a time when the fishing sector is burdened by the consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the rise in oil prices, and Brexit;
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26