Activities of Pierre KARLESKIND related to 2023/2124(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries (debate)
Amendments (34)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
– having regard to the report entitled '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 Text adopted, P9_TA(2021)0017.
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 b (new)
Citation 1 b (new)
– having regard to the report on the implementation of Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation,1a _________________ 1a Text adopted, P9_TA(2022)0226.
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)
Citation 16 a (new)
– Having regard to its report 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 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 b (new)
Citation 16 b (new)
– having regard to recommendation 2023-6 of the Aquaculture Advisory Council on the Impact of the Action Plan’s Bottom Trawling Ban on Shellfish Farming, and the Commission’s reply to it,
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 c (new)
Citation 16 c (new)
– having regard to the 2018 Commission’s Guidance on Aquaculture and Natura 2000;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 d (new)
Citation 16 d (new)
– having regard to Regulation (EC) n°1367/2006 of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Union institutions and bodies1d, _________________ 1d OJ L 264 25.9.2006, p. 13.
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
– having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 - Bringing nature back into our lives’ (COM(2020)0380), and to its resolution of 9 June 2021 thereon1d; _________________ 1d Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0277.
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 b (new)
Citation 17 b (new)
– having regard to the report from the Commission on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (COM(2020)259),
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 c (new)
Citation 17 c (new)
– having regard to the report from the Commission outlining the progress made in implementing Directive 2014/89/EU establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (COM(2022) 185)
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 d (new)
Citation 17 d (new)
– having regard to its resolution entitled “More fish in the seas? Measures to promote stock recovery above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), including fish recovery areas and marine protected areas”1d, _________________ 1d Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0017.
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 e (new)
Citation 17 e (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 6 October 2022 on momentum for the ocean: strengthening ocean governance and biodiversity1d, _________________ 1d Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0356.
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy 1e, _________________ 1e OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22.
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 b (new)
Citation 18 b (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)1e, _________________ 1e OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19.
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 c (new)
Citation 18 c (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 planning (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive)1e, _________________ 1e OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135.
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. calls on the Commission to establish this ecosystem based approach not only to fisheries management, but to all policies related to the blue economy, as part of an overarching legal framework;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas all EU policies relating to the sustainable blue economy, in their internal and external dimension, are managed through a siloed-governance resulting in a lack of synergies and arising conflicts among sustainable blue economic stakeholders;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas applying an ecosystem based approach to all marine-related policies is essential to achieve the EU’s energy, climate and biodiversity goals;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas the management of ecosystems requires a holistic approach that takes into account all the causes of biodiversity loss, such as climate change, ocean acidification, appearance of alien species, coastal erosion, loss of marine biodiversity, etc.
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas marine biodiversity must be protected and restored in cooperation with all stakeholders, and in particular with the fisheries sector and the scientific community;
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 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 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strive to achieve the Green Deal target of designating 30% of EU waters as marine protected areas by 2030;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to implement by 2030 the protection measures needed to achieve the conservation and restoration targets in all marine protected areas, especially measures banning the use of fishing techniques that are incompatible with the specific conservation and restoration targets for each species, starting with the areas most at risk, the Natura 2000 areas that aim to protect marine habitats;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Recalls that the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) should be used to provide effective support for EU fishing fleets transitioning to more selective and less harmful fishing techniques, and in particular to support the fishers most affected by the ban; reiterates its call to the Commission and the Member States to ban fishing in strictly protected marine areas;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recognises that the success of MPAs and other protected areas lies in them being accepted and embraced by fishers, coastal communities and other stakeholders; calls therefore for the inclusion of the fisheries sector, in accordance with the Aarhus convention, including its artisanal component, as well as other relevant stakeholders, in the design, management, monitoring and surveillance of MPAs; recalls that the Commission staff working document of January 2023 called "Criteria and guidance for protected areas designations" clearly states that the need for clear site-specific conservation objectives and conservation measures for all Natura 2000 sites is a legal requirement;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Reiterates the objectives to protect at least 30% and to strictly protect at least 10% of EU seas by 2030, notes that the EU has made progress in designating new marine protected areas, both as part of the EU Natura 2000 network and through complementary national designations;
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 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;