BETA

37 Amendments of Stéphanie YON-COURTIN related to 2020/2273(INI)

Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
A. whereas EU fishing, aquaculture and processing sectors subscribe to among the highest standards of environmental and social sustainability throughout the entire value chain, including labour rights and animal health and welfare, and provide high-quality seafood products, thus playing a fundamental role in food security and nutritional wellbeing to an ever increasing population; whereas by restricting fishing, a number of UNit is therefore important to manage fisheries sustainably and to respect our international sustainability commitments, in particular the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are jeopardised;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the outermost regions (OR) account for 70% of European biodiversity;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
D. whereas the EU Biodiversity Strategy does nomust take into account at all that there have beenthe considerable improvements in EU fish populations; whereas in the north-east Atlantic there has been a 50 % increase in the number of fish at seafish biomass in only 10 years and overfishing in the EU is at an all-time low,; whereas almost 100 % of thethe share of landings from EU- regulated stocks which come from stocks fished at the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels is at an all-time high;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the European Union has set itself some ambitious targets under the Common Fisheries Policy, revised in 2013, and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; whereas, over and beyond the progress made in achieving MSY in some European basins, measures are still needed in order to achieve the overall objectives of good environmental status for waters;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas the report of the European Environment Agency entitled 'Marine Messages II' and published in May 2020 warns of the current state of degradation of the European marine environment and the need to rapidly restore our marine ecosystems by addressing the impact of human activities on the marine environment;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas the European Court of Auditors' Special Report 26/2020 entitled 'Marine environment: EU protection is wide but not deep' states that although a framework is in place to protect the marine environment, EU actions have not led to sufficient protection of ecosystems and habitats and that current marine protected areas provide only limited protection;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 39 #
Dd. having regard to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and in particular to Aichi Biodiversity Target 11;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Recital D e (new)
De. whereas the target of ensuring that at least 30% of all marine habitats are protected by 2030 should be established at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2021;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that effectively managed fished populations are more productive than non-fished ones; stresses, therefore, the fact that, in certain cases, closing fishing areas might not be compatible with social welfare and economic prosperity – essential components of sustainability – and with the SDGs on food security and poverty alleviation;deleted
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the establishment of an EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, setting ambitious targets; shares the view that urgent action is needed to preserve and restore biodiversity;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Points out that the need to preserve and restore biodiversity concerns the land, sea and oceans equally; calls, therefore, for the link between land and sea to be highlighted within the strategy, since what happens on land has an impact on what happens at sea, particularly as regards the health of marine stocks and ecosystems;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Regrets that greater attention is not paid to fisheries and aquaculture in the Commission's communication on the strategy; calls for fisheries and aquaculture to occupy their rightful place in the measures that are to follow the communication;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Calls for special attention to be paid to ORs and their specific features in the biodiversity strategy, given that these regions account for 70% of European biodiversity;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Welcomes the goal that at least 25 000 km of watercourses should become free-flowing once again by 2030 in order, for example, to facilitate the passage of migratory fish or improve the flow of water and sediment, thereby helping to improve the quality of coastal water bodies;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that marine protected areas (MPAs) are a tool, not an objective per se; underlines the fact that setting a protection objective through the means of a consWelcomes the ambitious targets concerning 30% marine protected areas (MPAs) and 10% strictly protected areas; stresses that MPAs are a tool, not an objective per se; insists that the establishment of marine protected and strictly protected areas should be based on scientific criteria and should be carried out in coopervation figure (i.e. a percentage) is irrelevant, since the most important thing is to ensure that the established protection zones truly cover an area with an ecological value that needs to be protectedwith all stakeholders, in particular with professional and recreational fishers; stresses the importance of establishing coherent MPA networks; points out that the protection of marine areas does not always mean that activities have to cease altogether;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that setting abstract, arbitrary, rigid, unrealistic and non- achievable numerical targets undermines good legislation and the credibility of lawmakers;deleted
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that strengthening and efficiently implementing existing closed areas would be much more efficient and meaningful, in parallel, existing MPAs should be strengthened and efficiently implemented;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
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 MPA; calls on the Commission to examine the effectiveness of these ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’; _________________ 1https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop- 14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 2
No-take zonesdeleted
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that establishing protection zones does not have to be incompatible with the practice of activities, including extractive ones, as long as they do not compromise the values of those protected areas and provided that they are established under scientific advice and that there is adequate management and control;deleted
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion
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 that only in cases where there is evidence that the objon the progress made by Member States on fishing gear selectivesity and targets have not been met, the Commission may propose measureby-catch reductions; _________________ 2 OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 105
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on therefore the Commission to wait for the abovementioned reports before proposing an action plan;deleted
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 122 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 5
Discriminatory treatmentdeleted
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
11. Expresses its deep regret over the obvious discriminatory treatment of fisheries compared to that of agriculture; 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;deleted
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 133 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 6
Fisheries: the source of all evil?An ecosystem approach to the CFP
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 137 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
12. Strongly denounces the excessive focus on fishing and its connection with the failure to achieve the good ecological status in marCalls for the Commission's review of the CFP by 2022 to consider the possibility of establishing a genuine ecosystems and the lack of consideration given to other sources of pressure and degradation, such as oil, gas, dredging or shippipproach to the Common Fisheries Policy which takes account not only of the pressure of fishing on stocks, biodiversity and marine ecosystems but also of other factors, such as pollution and climate change;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 146 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Commission, ahead of its action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems and as part of the ecosystem-based implementation of fisheries management, to identify practices which have a negative impact on stocks, ocean biodiversity and the marine environment and, where necessary, to introduce measures to limit and change them;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 148 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that gears and techniques should not be demonised; recalls that bottom trawling can also enhance biodiversity in certain sandy seabeds and that it is one of the most common and most regulated fishing gears in Europe; stresses that it is the only viable way to catch many key species that we eat and that almost all of them are fished at MSY levels and that many of them are Marine Stewardship Council certified;deleted
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 156 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 8 a (new)
Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and international ocean governance
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 169 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Strongly supports the objective of zero tolerance of IUU fishing; points out that IUU fishing has an extremely negative impact on the state of stocks, marine ecosystems, biodiversity and the competitiveness of European fishers; calls, in this regard, for greater consistency between EU trade and fisheries policies in order to ensure that IUU fishing is combated effectively;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 170 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Welcomes the strategy's emphasis on international ocean governance and marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean; calls for the EU to take on the role of leader in international ocean governance, as it will not be able to ensure the preservation and restoration of biodiversity in the world on its own; calls for the Commission to demand that the Ocean be declared a shared asset of humankind;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 171 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Calls for special attention to be paid to the Arctic Ocean, since it is not covered by any regional fisheries management organisation, and calls for monitoring of the agreement to prevent unregulated fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 182 #
Draft opinion
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 basis, adapted to that the implementation of the targets should take into account local specificities and to the level required to protect nature; recommends that such targets should also take into account socio- economic considerations and the need to ensure a long-term resilience of the fisheries and aquaculture value chain, be proportionate with the objective pursued and have a solid scientific basis;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 196 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 23
23. Emphasises the importance of ensuring an adequate and fair income to fishers, aquaculture producers and farmers, as well as a level playing field with imported food;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 197 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 24
24. Advocates for the objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 to be achieved in the most effective and least burdensome way for economic operaway whilst ensuring economic competitiveness and social benefits for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 200 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
25. Notes 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 that this goes hand in hand with the need to give fishers and aquaculture producers the space ithey needs, but also fishermen and aquaculture producers the space they needinsofar as the preservation and restoration of biodiversity will be beneficial to those sectors;
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH
Amendment 205 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
26. Recommends that MPAs should designated as areas in which only fisheries and aquaculture activities can occur;deleted
2021/01/27
Committee: PECH