Activities of Gabriel MATO related to 2023/2124(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries (debate)
Amendments (14)
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the EU fisheries sector has proven to be a strategic one during Brexit, the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine; whereas the action plan to protect marine biodiversity, notably by proposing a progressive ban of bottom trawling in all MPAs by 2030, is in full contradiction and mismatch with the reality the sector and society face today: the need to ensure food security and self- efficiency in Europe and not to unnecessarily waste fishery resources that could be harvested sustainably;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas focusing on protection of the environment and ignoring socio- economic considerations and food security objectives is contrary to the Common Fisheries Policy and the Treaty;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas proposing blanket bans, instead of refined tailor-made measures, based on the best available scientific advice, is not good legislation and governance;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas without a prior socio- economic impact assessment, without distinguishing the various bottom gears and their impacts and without sufficient data, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 closed 87 areas to all bottom-fishing gear in the EU waters of the north-east Atlantic, representing a total area of 16 419 km2 and 17 % of the area between 400 and 800 metres deep; whereas this has a severe socio-economic impact on the fishing fleets concerned;
Amendment 159 #
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; considers that the Commission’s call to phase out mobile bottom fishing in all MPAs by 2030 - that is to ban bottom trawling in one third of the EU seas - without taking into account the specific objectives of each MPA is discriminatory, disproportionate, unjustified and not based on the best available science; 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 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Stresses that bottom trawling is one of the most common and most regulated fishing gears in Europe, that it is the only viable way to catch many key species that we eat, that almost all of them are fished at Maximum Sustainable Yield levels and that many of them are Marine Stewardship Council certified;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Recalls that ICES recognises that some levels of bottom trawl fishing can be compatible with achieving seabed conservation objectives;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Highlights that, with regard to the benefits of seafloor protection for fisheries, ICES advises that although there are many potential benefits, there may be trade-offs between these benefits; considers that bottom trawl management (i.e. the proposed ban) may not always positively affect all ecosystem components on which trawling has an impact, due to the food-web interactions between target and non-target species;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 d (new)
Paragraph 11 d (new)
11d. Observes that ICES is less assertive than the Commission with regard to the capacity of a disturbed seabed sediment to store carbon as it states that "evidence indicates that the effect of trawling is variable, with some studies reporting no significant differences, or even increases in organic carbon content in heavily trawled areas";
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 e (new)
Paragraph 11 e (new)
11e. Stresses that, with regard to the impact of bottom trawling on fish stocks, ICES recognises that flatfish may benefit from light trawling levels on sandy seabeds;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 f (new)
Paragraph 11 f (new)
11f. Considers that measures related to bottom trawling should continue being regulated in the framework of the technical measures regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2019/1241), whoseaim is, as its title indicates, "the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems"; stresses that any new measure should be introduced, if necessary, only through a review of that regulation; highlights that the Commission's intentions to impose measures through its action plan, instead of letting the co-legislators decide, undermines the inter-institutional balance and each Institution's role in the decision- making process;
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Takes into account 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 linkedsimilar to the action plan, underlining the lack of proportionality of certain measures;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Believes that measures included in such an action plan should follow the ordinary legislative procedures, ensuring greater transparency and a genuine impact assessment, with all stakeholders properly involved;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Regrets the fact that there is a lack of coherence between the need to ensure European food sovereignty, supplying the market with quality, sustainable and food- safe products, and establishing bans in fishing areas or gears, an issue that, in addition, can go against good governance and dialogue between stakeholders and different levels of administration if carried out a priori.