2023/2124(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
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 100 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Recital C e (new)

Ce. whereas shellfish, wild or cultivated, are important elements of coastal ecosystems, providing ecosystem services such as water filtration, nitrogen absorption and carbon storage, and whereas shellfish farming plots act as biodiversity hubs ; whereas a significant part of shellfish farming takes place in Natura 2000 areas; whereas some cultivation techniques entail dredging on farming plots at the end of a two to four years growing period, after which juvenile shellfish are immediately re-seeded on the seabed;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1 Notes the need to strengthen and improve scientific recommendations, to adopt an ecosystem-based approach for managing marine resources, and to use a higher resolution when mapping the fishing footprint and carbon sinks.

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Deplores the fact that, despite~~Praise the efforts made by the EU fisheries sector~~’s great efforts~~ and progress achieved towards the protectingon of marine ecosystems and ~~making them sustainable, the oceans are still subject to~~sustainability of the three CFP pillars; despite this effort and progress, the oceans are affected by several other factors such as climate change, acidification and ~~pollution through polluta~~differents s~~uch as nitrites, plastics and other~~ources of pollution marin~~e litter or waste~~ly from land- based activities, which are beyond the control of fishers and pose a significant threat to their livelihoods and marine ecosystems;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
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, the oceans are~~ the ocean is still subject to climate change, acidification and pollution through pollutants such as nitrites, plastics and other marine litter or waste, in particular from land- based activities, which are beyond the control of fishers and pose a significant threat to their livelihoods and marine ecosystems; recalls, as mentioned in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, that the five main direct drivers of biodiversity loss are changes in land and sea use, natural resource extraction, climate change, pollution and the invasion of alien species6c; _________________ 6c IPBES Global Assessment Report of 31 May 2019 on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Deplores th~~e 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 105 #

Motion for a resolution
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, the oceans are still subject to~~ oceans and marine ecosystems are still subject to destructive fishing techniques, overfishing, climate change, acidification and pollution through pollutants such as nitrites, plastics and other marine litter orand waste from land- based activities, which are beyond the control of fishers ~~and~~, pos~~e a~~ing significant threats to ~~their~~fishers' livelihoods and marine ecosystems;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
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, 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, including maritime transport, which are beyond the control of fishers and pose a significant threat to their livelihoods and marine ecosystems;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Deplores the fact that, despite the EU fisheries sector’s ~~great efforts and progres~~efforts towards protecting marine ecosystems ~~and making them sustainable~~, the oceans are ~~still~~ subject to overfishing, climate change, acidification and pollution through pollutants such as nitrites, plastics and other marine litter or waste from land- based activities, ~~which are~~several of those drivers being beyond the control of fishers and poseing a significant threat to their livelihoods and marine ecosystems;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes the EU Action Plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries; reiterates its support for the EU 2030 biodiversity strategy and its objective to protect at least 30 % of sea area in the EU, including through fish population recovery areas and areas where the most destructive fishing techniques and economic activities are restricted;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that, according to IPBES, overfishing is the main driver of marine biodiversity loss worldwide; recalls that the fisheries sector is highly dependent on thriving marine ecosystems, considers therefore that reducing the impact of fisheries on the marine environment is key for the survival of the fisheries sector in the long term;

Amendment 11 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 d (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives 1a, _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0277.

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that doing so will incur a significant socio-economic cost for Member States and their fleets. Therefore regrets the fact that the action plan is not accompanied by a socio-economic study and does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions proposed by the European Commission.

Amendment 111 #

Asger CHRISTENSEN, Pierre KARLESKIND, Catherine CHABAUD

Motion for a resolution
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 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes the recognition of well- managed recreational fishing as a sustainable blue economy sector;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes, like all stakeholders involved in fisheries and environmental policies, contribute to sustainable food security in the scope of blue economy and that healthy marine ecosystems benefit our health, society and economy, and are essential for the planet and the populations that rely on them;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes~~, like all stakeholders involved in fisheries and environmental policies,~~ that healthy marine ecosystems benefit our health, society and economy, and are essential for the planet and the populations that rely on them;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes, ~~like all stakeholders involved in fisheries and environmental policies,~~ that healthy marine ecosystems benefit our health, society and economy, and are essential for all the planet ~~and the populations that rely on them~~;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Regarding the release of ammunitions and other contaminants into our oceans, particularly in the Baltic Sea, recalls its resolution on chemical residues in the Baltic Sea, based on Petitions Nos 1328/2019 and 0406/2020and the successful actions such as CHEMSEA, DAIMON and DAIMON 2 and urges the Commission and Member States to implement further practical actions to clean the ocean floor. considers, additionally, that they should enact legal measures to guarantee the safety of these waters from such dangers;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls the need to better take into account the ecosystem-based approach and the socio-economic aspects when implementing the CFP; encourages the Commission to promote the scientific concept of "pêchécologie" ("fishecology") which aims to reconcile conservation measures and sustainable use of living resources of the seas; stresses the need to support research and development of less impactful fishing gear, promoting for example the widening of net meshes to reduce the number of juvenile fish caught;

Amendment 118 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that coastal communities have been harvesting Europe’s seas for many generations; considers that these communities therefore form part of the marine ecosystem, and believes that the sustainable exploitation and management of marine resources should be seen as contributing to marine ecosystems, not detracting from them;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls for public aid to be allocated to research and innovation aimed at reducing contact with the seabed, rather than to changing fishing gear or scrapping

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 e (new)

– having regard to the 2021 ICES report entitled 'EU request on how management scenarios to reduce mobile bottom fishing disturbance on seafloor habitats affect fisheries landing and value. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021',

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recalls that European fishers supply the market with high-quality fish products with a low carbon footprint, and that fish stocks in the EU have recovered;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the Commission~~er Sinkevičius~~’s action plan ~~lacks a coherent approach~~could further build coherence with the other Commission priorities and strategies, such as ensuring food security, in line with the objectives of the farm to fork strategy, decarbonisation, the strategic autonomy of the EU and a level playing field with non-EU countries, as well as the fight against rising prices, enhancing the social dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and strengthening economic growth and employment;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that Commissioner Sinkevičius’s action plan 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 rising prices, enhancing the social dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and strengthening economic growth and employment;all EU policies related to the protection and regeneration of marine ecosystems, including the Water Framework Directive6d, should be managed through an integrated and coherent approach promoting synergies between all maritime activities; recalls the need to achieve an integrated EU maritime policy framework that ensures consistency between EU biodiversity strategy, the Farm to Fork strategy, climate policy, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the CFP; _________________ 6d Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishes a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that ~~Commissioner Sinkevičius’s a~~the Action pPlan ~~lacks a~~must be coherent ~~approach~~ with other ~~Commiss~~Union priorities and strategies, such as ensuring food security, and the strategic autonomy of the EU ~~and~~; in addition the Action Plan should grant a level playing field with non-EU countries, as well as t~~he fight against rising prices,~~o contribute to enhanc~~ing~~e the social dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and strengthening economic growth and employment;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the Commission~~er 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 125 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that Commissioner Sinkevičius’s action plan 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 rising prices, enhancing the social dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and strengthening economic growth and employmentWelcomes the EU action plan as part of the ambition to ensure that by 2050 all of the world’s ecosystems are restored, resilient, and adequately protected; reiterates that all efforts should be made to achieve this goal as soon possible;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Deplores the fact that the Commission has not included inclusive and effective environmental protection instruments, such as OECMs, in the action plan. Calls, to that end, for the FAO's 2022 handbook for identifying, evaluating and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures in marine fisheries[1] to be used. [1] A handbook for identifying, evaluating and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures in marine fisheries (FAO).

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Deplores the fact that the European Commission is proposing an action plan whose implementation would entail significant socio-economic costs for Member States and their fleets, while the existing regulations – such as the so- called Mediterranean Regulation, which needs urgent revision – are incompatible with the Common Fisheries Policy and the needs of the sector, and are partly unenforceable;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Takes the view that Commissioner Sinkevičius' action plan chiefly provides for additional obligations and regulations for fishermen and that their needs have never been properly taken into account;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. regrets the poor timing and clear inter-linkage between the action plan to restore ecosystems and the regulation on nature restoration;

Amendment 13 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
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 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls for OECMs to be included in the calculation of the statutory protection target of 30% so that this objective can be achieved in a proportionate manner. Asks in this regard for other closures to bottom fishing established by fisheries legislation to be taken into account, such as the 87 areas recently closed to bottom fishing in the Atlantic, or the closures in the Western Mediterranean due to the multiannual management plan.

Amendment 131 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Recalls that the Action plan 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 achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Requests that (in addition to the European Maritime Fund for Fisheries and Aquaculture (EMFAF)) the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund adopt fisheries-focused programmes in order to improve the channelling of funds to areas where they are most needed. Further calls on the European Commission to produce monitoring reports to verify whether funds are being properly implemented and distributed.

Amendment 133 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. underlines a general issue with the Commission on the principle of proportionality, the low legal quality of delegated acts, the over-transposition of international commitments as well as the lack of real consultation with stakeholders and lack of best scientific data to support the action plan;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Strongly recommends that an assessment of the proven risks of using deep-sea fishing gear in Natura 2000 conservation areas be carried out in order to determine for certain whether an activity is incompatible with an ecological issue.

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that the action plan 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~~following the ecosystem approach and that is consistent with the objectives of ensuring economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies; welcomes the objectives to have a coherent approach between CFP and other policies, in particular environmental legislation ;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that the action plan 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;, and make best use of MSY to reduce dependency of the markets from third countries.

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Recall~~Welcomes that the action plan is~~hould 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 an ecosystem-based approach 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 138 #

Motion for a resolution
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 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls that the CFP should implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management; calls on the Commission to work on this goal not only in relation to fisheries management, but to all policies related to the blue economy, as part of an overarching legal framework;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 f (new)

– having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation (COM(2021)583),

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
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 141 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Recalls that the fisheries sector is facing an extremely difficult situation in view of the consequences of Brexit, international geopolitical events and the energy crisis, and that the negative impact on fisheries is increasing;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses that the blanket ban on bottom fishing in MPAs is not provided for by any international instrument (BBNJ, CBD or the RFMOs), or even by the EU legal acquis.

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3

~~Nature restoration~~deleted

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3

~~Nature restoration~~Marine ecosystems conservation, bycatch and selectivity

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the lack of coherence between the title of the action plan and the proposals presented therein, which mainly focus 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;deleted

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the lack of coherence between the title of the action plan and the proposals presented therein, which mainly focus 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; recalls the specific relevance of balancing restrictions for users and gains for nature to optimise legal security;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the ~~lack of coherence between the title of the action plan and the proposals presented therein, which mainly focus on altering the fishing practices that affect species and habitats withou~~fact that the proposed Action plan does not address~~ing~~ the potential for alignment between fishing techniques and practices and the protection or restoration of ecosystems;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the lack of coherence between the title of the action plan and the proposals presented therein, which mainly focus 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; recalls the need for fishers to be part of the solution, instead of being put forward as cause.

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Regrets the lack of coherence between the title of~~Welcomes that the action plan and the proposals presented therein, ~~which mainly focus on altering the~~not only propose a reduction of fishing practices that affect species and seabed habitats ~~without~~but also address~~ing~~es the potential for ~~alignment between fishing techniques and pract~~introducing additional measures to boost selectivity, including innovations to improve the selectivity of fishing gear and devices, a~~nd the protection or restoration of ecosystem~~s well as measures to reduce the catches of juveniles and bycatch of sensitive species;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
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 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the lack of ~~coherence between the title of the action plan and the proposals presented therein, which~~a 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 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. considers that our oceans, seas and marine life suffer from (micro)plastics; is of the opinion therefore that the EU should stimulate scientific research on the transition towards plastic- free and/or biodegradable fishing gear and on the reduction of plastic fish lint; further considers that it is essential that this happens in a holistic and coherent approach taking into account other EU policies and research projects;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses, for example, that scientific studies show that increasing the mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes would enable to leave the youngest fish in the water, and therefore increase the chances for fish populations to reproduce, leading to higher yields for fishers and higher landings per unit effort;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Points out that the characteristics of the oceans have changed in the last 10 years (temperature, density, salinity, oxygen saturation, etc.) and that it is necessary to assess and identify the causes of the loss of biodiversity, such as plastic pollution, maritime transport, industry, etc;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. emphasise the need to develop and support initiatives to restore marine ecosystems; with that aim, requests an financial support for scientific studies and data collection in marine ecosystems;

Amendment 155 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Considers that nature restoration in marine areas can only be brought about if policy makers fully engage and cooperate with those whose livelihoods are dependent on those marine areas;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Conservation measures should be specific to the designation of each site and solutions to identified problems should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Insists on the fact that incidental catches of sensitive marine species, including those listed under Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC, that are a result of fishing, have to be reduced and, where possible, eliminated so that they do not represent a threat to the conservation status of these species;

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Welcomes the Commission’s calls to reduce bycatch of sensitive species; highlights in particular the urgent need to act to reduce bycatch of common dolphins and porpoises in the Bay of Biscay, by establishing short-term closures of certain fishing areas combined with acoustic deterrent devices and the improvement of monitoring systems, in line with scientific advice; recalls that financial compensations and incentives are available under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) to mitigate the socio-economic impacts of those measures;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
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 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 g (new)

– having regard to the 2023 ICES report entitled 'EU additional request on mitigation measures to reduce by-catches of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in the Bay of Biscay. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2023',

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Iinsists 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 Commission’s action plan supports an over~~simplifi~~-generalised approach, in particular by proposing a blanket ban on certain fishing gears, ~~thu~~leading to a false image of MPAs giving the impression that all MPAs should be treated in the same way~~; c~~. 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 161 #

Motion for a resolution
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; 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 otheremphasises that nature, fish and other living organisms have an intrinsic value, even if they remain unexploited by human activities;

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
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; calls for a balance to be struck between the proposal to inc; recognises the benefits of well-managed MPAs for marine ecosystems and fish, as well as in the short term for fishers who have a low impact on the environment, and ultimately for the entirea se ~~closures of traditional fishing areas, on the one hand, and maintaining fishing activity, on the other~~ctor, in particular through the spill-over effect generated;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
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;welcomes that, while acknowledging the diversity of MPAs and conservation measures, the Action Plan recognises that some fishing techniques are incompatible with Marine Protected Areas , 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 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Insists on the fact~~Highlights that MPAs are diverse in terms of size, species, habitats and ecosystems t~~argeted~~o be protected are established with different conservation objectives, and should therefore not be seen as uniform areas; considers, therefore, that the action plan ~~support~~has an oversimplified approach, ~~in particular by proposing a blanket ban on certain fishing gear,~~ thus giving the impression that all MPAs ~~should be treat~~can be implemented and managed in the same way; calls for a balance ~~to be struck between the proposal to increase closures of traditional fishing areas, on~~d approach on the definition and implementation of MPAs, taking into account the con~~e hand, and maintaining fishing activity, on th~~servation objectives but also activities that traditionally use otherose areas;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
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 wrongly considered harmful a priori, 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 other;

Amendment 166 #

Asger CHRISTENSEN

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~suppor~~presents 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 ot~~d 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 167 #

Motion for a resolution
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; calls for a balance to be struck between the pro~~posal to increase closures of traditional fishing areas~~tection of nature, on the one hand, and maintaining fishing activity, on the other;

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the current lack of compliance with the Habitats Directive notably its Article 6; recalls that MPAs are required to have management measures in line with the conservation objectives of those sites and that the Commission has opened procedures against certain Member States for not fulfilling their obligations under the Habitats Directive;

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls the lack of consideration given to 'other effective area-based conservation measures' (OECMs) to maximise the effects of measures in a dynamic, changing environment due to climate change;

Amendment 17 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Catherine CHABAUD

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 g (new)

– having regard to the Court of Auditors special report No 26/2020 of 26 November 2020 entitled ‘Marine environment: EU protection is wide but not deep’,

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
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 171 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Catherine CHABAUD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Reiterates its call for a legally binding objective to protect at least 30% of the EU's sea area, and to strictly protect at least 10% of the EU's sea area;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
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 173 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Catherine CHABAUD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. calls for a decarbonisation and environmental protection strategy that places greater emphasis on innovation rather than on eliminating fishing activity and pays equal attention to the three pillars of sustainability – environmental, social and economic – while simultaneously ensuring the preservation of retain skilled jobs within Europe;

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
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 175 #

Motion for a resolution
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 not~~should be accompanied by management plans as well as resources for their monitoring, control and surveillance; stresses that MPAs designation should not prevent EU and third countries from adopting ecosystem- based and effective fisheries management measures around them, notably to prevent bad practices, including by foreign fleets, such as the Chinese fleet around the Galápagos sanctuary;

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that MPAs ~~and all~~, including strictly protected areas ~~are not an end in themselves and that their designation as protected areas will not prevent bad practices by foreign fleets, such as the Chinese fleet around the Galápagos sanctuary~~, should be planned, implemented, monitored and controlled with the close involvement of all stakeholders in the process; is of the opinion that this will ensure the implementation of each MPA and that their objectives are possible to achieve; recalls that the sense of ownership and belonging, will make it possible to reduce and prevent illegal activities;

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
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 not~~cannot 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 178 #

Motion for a resolution
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 not prevent bad practices ~~by foreign fleets, such as the Chinese fleet arou~~, without ensuring that the protected status is accompanied by measures that prohibit extractive and othe ~~Galápagos sanctuary~~r destructive activities within those areas;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
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 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 h (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) 1d , _________________ 1d OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19.

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Recalls its resolution expressing strong support for the EU targets of protecting at least 30 % of the EU’s marine and terrestrial areas, covering a diverse range of ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, peatlands, grasslands and coastal ecosystems, and of strictly protecting at least 10 % of the EU’s marine and terrestrial areas; stresses that these protected areas should create an ecologically coherent and representative network, building on existing protected areas; underlines that in addition to increasing protected areas, the quality of protected areas must be ensured, including through sufficient funding and the implementation of clear and effective conservation;

Amendment 181 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Reiterates its call for the EU to launch and fund scientific research programmes to map carbon-rich marine habitats in EU waters to serve as a basis for designating such areas as strictly protected MPAs in order to protect and restore marine carbon sinks in line with the UNFCCC, and to protect and restore ecosystems, in particular those on the seabed, in line with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, protecting them from human activities that could disturb and release carbon into the water column;

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls for a socioeconomic impact study of the proposed measures, in particular with regard to the ban on bottom fishing in marine protected areas, and calls for all necessary means, including incentives and compensatory mechanisms, to be put in place for a just and balanced transition

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on a comprehensive and actionable plan that does not jeopardise food security and sovereignty and that empowers fishers to fully utilise their quotas;

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Stresses that Marine Protected Areas can contribute to deliver benefits for marine ecosystems and local economic activities; recalls that effectively managed and sufficiently protected areas minimise incidental catches of sensitive species, protect fish spawning and nursery areas and juveniles, and reduce impacts on sensitive habitats, in particular the seabed;

Amendment 185 #

Motion for a resolution
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 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Regrets that many Member States have designated an important number of MPAs over the past decades without paying sufficient attention to their level of protection and effective management; calls on the EU and its Member States to consider redesigning their map of MPAs based on quality criteria, including declassifying potentially irrelevant MPAs that only exist on paper where needed, and to build science-based ecological networks of effective and sufficiently protected areas, including no takes zones, that deliver for ocean, fisher and the society as a whole;

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7d. Deplores the fact that some Member States have come forward with an ambiguous definition of what strict protection in MPAs should be, thus opening the door to economic activities that are not compatible with the science- based objectives of strict protection; welcomes and supports the definition of 'strictly protected areas' as 'those fully and legally protected areas designated to conserve and/or restore the integrity of biodiversity-rich natural areas with their underlying ecological structure and supporting natural environmental processes; considers that natural processes are therefore left essentially undisturbed from human pressures and threats to the area’s overall ecological structure and functioning, independently of whether those pressures and threats are located inside or outside the 'strictly protected area';

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 e (new)

7e. Recalls that MPAs have been initially developed for conservation objectives and not as fish management tools; emphasises that when a certain type of fishing gear is prohibited in a Marine Protected Area it immediately benefits fishers that use low-impact fishing techniques;

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 f (new)

7f. Highlights that Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) should be designed with coastal communities, fishers, scientists and civil society; calls on Member States to involve them at each stage of the process, from the designation to the management of the areas, and to implement co-management approaches;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 h (new)

– having regard to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report of 24 September 2019 on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate,

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 g (new)

7g. Notes that scientific studies are showing that MPAs are delivering environmental and socio-economic benefits, that these benefits increase in the medium and long-term; considers that fishing restrictions should be accompanied by incentives for the transition to low impact fishing in order to accompany some segments that are impacted;

Amendment 191 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 h (new)

7h. Recalls the need to prohibit environmentally damaging industrial extractive activities in marine protected areas, including mining, oil, gas and harmful industrial fishing techniques, in line with the IUCN guidelines, in order to protect ecosystems and traditional activities of local communities;

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 i (new)

7i. Invites the EU and its Member States to expand the network of fish stock recovery areas under the CFP and under the GFCM, especially where there is clear evidence of heavy concentrations of fish below minimum conservation reference size or of spawning grounds and to increase their level of protection where needed; calls on the GFCM to draw on the successful example of the ‘Jabuka/Pomo Pit’ fish stock recovery area and on the GFCM minimum standards for fisheries restricted areas;

Amendment 193 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5

~~Bottom trawling~~Mobile bottom contacting fishing gears

Amendment 194 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Recognises that mobile bottom contacting fishing gear has an important negative impact on the ecosystems, as demonstrated by science; highlights, however, that many of this type fisheries are considered by science as sustainable, and species captured are exploited below MSY limits;

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 j (new)

7j. Recalls that bottom trawling is considered as one of the fishing techniques that has the highest negative impact on the environment, mostly due to the high rate of bycatches, the high rate of juvenile catches and its impact on seabed ecosystems and marine productivity;

Amendment 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 k (new)

7k. Notes that bottom trawling is one of the most used fishing techniques in the EU, that a large share of the fish consumed in the EU is fished using this technique and that reducing the impact of bottom trawling should be done carefully, be properly planned by governments and based on the best available scientific advice;

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is of the opinion that closing fishing zones to bottom trawlers is not simply a matter of moving fishing vessels so that they can continue to fish elsewhere, as this approach fails to take into account, among other things, the fishers’ understanding of the seabed and the presence of other fishing vessels in adjacent areas which could cause an overlap and lead to a localised overexploitation of resources and the deterioration of working conditions;deleted

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Is of the opinion that closing fishing zones to bottom trawle~~Highlights that many Union vessels operate with mobile bottom contacting fishing gears, and that many coastal regions are socially and economically dependent on activity of fleets that use these gears; highlights that closing fishing zones to mobile bottom contacting fishing gears is not simply a matter of moving fishing vessels sto ~~that they can continue to fish elsewhere, as this approach fails~~different fishing grounds ; stresses that it is necessary to take into account, among other things, the ~~fishers’ understanding of~~available resources possible to be captured with the se~~abed and~~ gears, the presence of other fishing vessels in adjacent areas which could cause an overlap and lead to aconflict on the use of space, localised overexploitation of resources and ~~the deterioration of working conditions~~impact ecosystems that are in a healthy state;

Amendment 199 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is of the opinion that closing fishing zones to bottom trawlers, and other high impacting fishing practices, is not simply a matter of moving fishing vessels so that they can continue to fish elsewhere~~, as this approach fails to take into accou~~ but needs to be accompanied with a comprehensive and coherent approach and policies in terms of maritime spatial planning, fishing effort management, a~~mong other things, the fishers’ understanding of the seabed and the presence of other~~nd science-based TACs; considers that this approach should be part of a just transition process for impacted coastal communities and take account of fishing vessels in adjacent areas which could cause an overlap and lead to a localised overexploitation of resources and the deterioration of working conditions;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
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 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 i (new)

– having regard to the UN General Assembly resolution entitled ‘Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York on 25 September 2015, and in particular to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which encourages the conservation and sustainable exploitation of the oceans, seas and marine resources,

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is of the opinion that closing fishing zones to bottom trawlers is not simply a matter of moving fishing vessels so that they can continue to fish elsewhere, as this approach fails to take into account, among other things, the fishers’ understanding of the seabed and the presence of other fishing vessels in adjacent areas which could cause an overlap and lead to a localised overexploitation of resoWelcomes the Commission's objective to gradually phase out bottom fishing in all Marine Protected Areas at the latest by 2030, in view of their key role in restoration of marine biodiversity and the importance of the seabed for healthy marine ecosystems and climate change mitigation; calls on the Commission to set legally binding targets to ensure that the goal to phase out bottom fishing in all Marine Protected Areas at the latest by 2030 is achieved; calls on the Member States to adopt ambitious measurces ~~and the deterioration of working condition~~to prohibit mobile bottom fishing in MPAs;

Amendment 201 #

Asger CHRISTENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is of the opinion that ~~closing fishing z~~restrictiones ton bottom trawlers is not simply a matter of moving ~~fishing vessels so that they can continue to fish~~the activity elsewhere, as ~~this~~such an approach fails to take into account, among other things, the ~~fishers’ understanding of the seabed and the presence of other fishing vessels in adjacent~~redistribution of fishing vessels creating increased pressures in other fishing areas, w~~hich could cause an overlap and lead to a localised overexploitation of resource~~ider knowledge of the seabed including practical experience from fishers and the deterioration of working conditions;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Welcomes the fact that the Action Plan calls on Member States to progressively phase out bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas and to mitigate the effects of bottom trawling on seabed ecosystems; stresses that long-term visibility and financial support is needed to ensure a just transition that leaves no fisher behind, considers that the same objectives should be defended at international level; recalls that Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal agreement mentions that any sustainable use within protected areas must be fully consistent with conservation objectives;

Amendment 203 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Recalls that the moves towards regionalisation made during the last CFP reform were an attempt to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach whereby decisions were overly centralised within the EU; considers that the action plan’s calls in relation to bottom trawling mark a return to that overly centralised approach;

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses the importance of not considering bottom trawling to be the sole cause of the adverse conditions in certain marine areas and adds that all existing factors should be taken into account and that bottom trawling should not be banned in a preventive and arbitrary manner;

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Calls for the EU to launch and fund scientific research programmes to map carbon-rich marine habitats in EU waters to serve as a basis for designating such areas as strictly protected marine protected areas, in order to protect and restore marine carbon sinks in line with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and to protect and restore ecosystems, in particular those on the seabed, in line with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, thereby protecting them from human activities that could disturb and release carbon into the water column, such as bottom-contacting fishing operations;

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Considers that the ban on bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas should not only be seen as an objective but also as a tool to support the reduction of the use of bottom trawling and its replacement by low impact fishing techniques, as closing areas to bottom trawling would allow low impact fisheries to fish there more easily or would allow experimentation to take place;

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)

8d. Calls for the EU to urgently tackle the detrimental impacts on the climate, seabed integrity, fish populations and sensitive species (as bycatch) of fishing techniques such as demersal seine, bottom-contacting gear, drift nets, or fish aggregating devices (FAD), including by limiting their use;

Amendment 208 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)

8e. Recalls its position on the Access to Waters Regulation, calling for a ban on demersal seine (Danish and Scottish Seine) in French waters, as demanded by regional fisheries organisations; calls on Members States and the EU to prohibit the use of demersal seine in all EU waters;

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 f (new)

8f. Calls for fishing vessels above 25 metres in length to be prohibited from fishing in the EU waters up to 12 nautical miles from the coast, measured from the baselines of the territorial waters;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 i (new)

– having regard to the IUCN Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, which sets out 6 categories of protected areas,

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 g (new)

8g. Recalls that Member States must fully implement Article 17 of the Common Fishery Policy when allocating fishing opportunities; calls on Member States to allocate fishing quotas on the basis of transparent and objective criteria based on the social and environmental performance of fishing fleets and to implement Article 17 as a tool to incentivise low impact responsible fishing practices in order to replace high impacting fishing practices;

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the multiplication of initiatives within and outside of the action plan concerning the same fishing technique brings 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 measures;deleted

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the multiplication of initiatives within and outside of the action plan concerning the same fishing technique ~~brings into question the coherence~~shows that this specific issue is complex and pre~~dictability of the Commission’s actions, with its desire to implement a total ban on a certain fishing technique being diluted in a series of measur~~quires consultation and support of all the stakeholders involved and an investment in research and deployment of less impactful alternatives for the seabed; welcomes the creation of an International Panel for Ocean Sustainability (IPOS) as part of the call for tenders launched and managed by the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA), to provide scientific and socio-economic guidance in the development of EU ocean-related policies;

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the ~~multiplication~~re has been several of initiatives within and outside of the action plan concerning the same fishing technique ~~bring~~creating 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 measures~~actions that will be taken at EU- level;

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the multiplication of initiatives within and outside of the action plan concerning the same fishing technique brings 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~~spread over a series of measures;

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Believes that this surplus of more or less short-term actions detracts from the coherence and legitimacy of initiatives that should be the subject of a consensus, taking into account socio-economic, technical and scientific aspects;deleted

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Believes that this surplus of more or less short-term actions detracts from the coherence and legitimacy of initiatives that should be the subject of a consensus, taking into account socio-economic, technical and scientific aspects; reiterates that actions supported by these considerations will have a positive effect on their implementation;

Amendment 217 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Believes that this surplus of more or less short-term actions detracts from the coherence and legitimacy of initiatives that should be the subject of a consensus, taking into account socio-economic, technical ~~and~~, scientific and food security aspects;

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Believes that this surplus of more or less short-term actions detracts from the coherence and legitimacy of initiatives that s~~Considers that any plan to implement restrictions on the use of any particular fishing gear need to be made in coherence with different policies, have in account all stakehould ~~be the subject of a consensus,~~ers, and tak~~ing~~e into account socio-economic, technical and scientific aspects;

Amendment 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes the lack of perspective on the consequences of certain aspects of the action plan, which was published without waiting, for instance, for scientific and socio-economic conclusions on previous proposals;deleted

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 j (new)

– having regard to Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 which requires Member States to use transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature, when allocating fishing opportunities and to endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective gear or using techniques with a reduced environmental impact,

Amendment 220 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Nnotes the lack of perspective on the consequences of certain aspects of the action plan~~, which was published~~ pointing out on one side the Commission’s calls to Member States to prohibit mobile fishing in the MPAs that are Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats Directive by the end of March 2024, while on the other side, in parallel and with the same deadline, requesting that Member States provide information on how they intend to ensure that by 2030 mobile bottom fishing is phased out in all MPAs without waiting, for instance, for scientific and socio-economic conclusions onf previous proposals;

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes the lack of perspective on the consequences of certain aspects of the action plan, which was published without waiting, for instance, for scientific and socio-economic conclusions on previous proposals; notes that these actions can have a severe impact on the trust of fishers and fisheries communities in (European) policy- and decision-making processes;

Amendment 222 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes the lack of perspective on the consequences of certain aspects of the action plan, which was published without waiting, for instance, for scientific and socio-economic conclusions on previous proposalBelieves that the consequences of any action plan or legislative proposal, need to be assessed based on scientific and socio-economic assessments;

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Notes the need to study the effect of shifting fishing effort to new, previously unexploited areas due to the bans introduced, which could lead to the emergence of conflicts between different fishing gears, the inaccessibility of target species or increased fuel consumption

Amendment 224 #

Motion for a resolution
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 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has acknowledged that a blanket approach banning mobile bottom contacting fishing is not suitable to reach the objectives of the Action Plan;

Amendment 226 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11b. Notes that a ban of bottom trawling in protected areas would also impact shellfish farming activities, dramatically for some countries, and could result in a 30% decrease of the EU production if implemented; asks Member States to carefully consider shellfish farming benefits for marine biodiversity and the specific characteristics of farmed shellfish dredging activities, assessing the overall ecological balance of these activities, when designing their conservation measures;

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

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)

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 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 k (new)

– having regard to the New Economics Foundation (NEF) report of March 2021 titled 'Valuing the impacts of potential ban on bottom-contact fishing in EU marine protected areas',

Amendment 230 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

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 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Emphasises the complexity and diversity of the management of the eel stock, which is not confined to a single marine-focused approach; highlights the fact that by focusing on annual fishing opportunities, other important factors are neglected, such as migration barriers, habitat quality, and illegal catches and trade; stresses that the Eel Regulation takes a holistic and comprehensive approach which captures both the marine and freshwater life stages of the eel and addresses both fisheries and non-fisheries impacts on eel stocks;deleted

Amendment 233 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Emphasises~~Calls on the cComplexity and diversity of the management of the eel stock, which is not confined to a single marine-focused approach; highlights the fact that by focusing on annual fishing opportunities, other important factors are neglected, such as migration barriers, habitat quality, and illegal catches and trade; stresses that the Eel Regulation takes a holistic and comprehensive approach which captures both the marine and freshwater life stages of the eel and addresses both fisheries and non-fisheries impacts on eel stocksmission and the Member States to make full use of the Eel Regulation as the core policy for the management and recovery of the eel stock once again, ensuring a holistic and coherent approach, which also includes fully implementing measures in other relevant areas outside of fisheries; recalls that the Eel Regulation was found to be fit for purpose by the Commission evaluation of 2020; nevertheless, is of the opinion that better implementation of the Eel Regulation and additional, strengthened actions by Member States are needed, in order to ensure a comprehensive approach of the Regulation;

Amendment 234 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Emphasises the complexity and diversity of the management of the eel stock, which ~~is not~~cannot be confined to a single marine-focused approach; highlights the fact that by focusing on annual fishing opportunities, other important factors are neglected, such as migration barriers, habitat quality, and illegal catches and trade; stresses that the Eel Regulation takes a holistic and comprehensive approach which captures both the marine and freshwater life stages of the eel and addresses both fisheries and non-fisheries impacts on eel stocks; stresses, therefore, that the Eel Regulation should be the core policy for the management and recovery of the eel stock;

Amendment 235 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Emphasises the complexity and diversity of the management of ~~the eel stock~~eel populations, which is not confined to a single marine-focused approach; ~~highlights the fact that by focusing on annual fishing opportunities, other important factors are neglected, such as migration barriers, habitat quality, and illegal catches and trade;~~ stresses that the Eel Regulation takes a holistic and comprehensive approach which captures both the marine and freshwater life stages of the eel and addresses both fisheries and non-fisheries impacts on eel ~~stock~~populations;

Amendment 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Endorses the proposal to improve the protection of the European eel by adopting or updating existing Eel Management Plans under the Eel Regulation in the light of new knowledge and on the basis of the report referred to in Article 9 of the Eel Regulation, in order to strengthen conservation and management measures and measures to address migration barriers, habitat loss and water quality issues as a matter of urgency, in line with scientific advice;

Amendment 237 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Expresses its concern over the fact that the European eel is listed as "critically endangered" under the IUCN Red List; calls on the Commission and Member States to take all recovery measures necessary, until eel populations have recovered and are back within safe biological limits;

Amendment 238 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses that measures taken outside the context of the Eel Regulation undermine the coherence of adopted policy; deplores the fact that Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1947 has restricted eel fisheries by introducing a six-month closure period without proper stakeholder consultation or an impact assessment on 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.deleted

Amendment 239 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Sstresses that measures taken outside of the context of the Eel Regulation undermine the coherence of adopted policy; deplores ~~the fact~~ that Council Regulation (EU) 2023/194~~7 has restricted eel fisheries by introducing a six-~~ 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 restricted eel fisheries with a 6- month clos~~ure~~ing period without proper stakeholder consultation ors and impact assessment on the socio-economic effects; considers, therefore, that an prior analysis of the species’ recovery ands well as its possible role in combating invasive species should be ~~under~~taken 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 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 l (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 9 May 2023 on Co-Management of Fisheries in the EU and the contribution of the fisheries sector for the implementation of management measures1d, _________________ 1d Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0132.

Amendment 240 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Stresses~~Is of the opinion that measures taken outside the context of the Eel Regulation may undermine the coherence of adopted policy; ~~deplores the f~~therefore, expresses deep concern in relation to the non- holistic approacth t~~hat~~aken 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 on~~considering 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 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses that measures taken outside the context of the Eel Regulation may undermine the coherence of adopted policy; ~~deplores the f~~therefore, has deep concerns with the non-holistic approacth t~~hat~~aken 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 on 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.considering a full package of measures in other policy areas as well as appropriate compensation

Amendment 242 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses that measures taken outside the context of the Eel Regulation undermine the coherence of adopted policy; deplores the fact that Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1947 has restricted eel fisheries by introducing a six-month closure period without proper stakeholder consultation or an impact assessment on 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 fixHighlights the ICES advice to allow zero eel catches in all habitats in 2023, applying to both recreational and commercial catches, including catches of glass eels for restocking and aquaculture; expresses that it is irresponsible and unethical to continue hunting 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 certaifishing animal species that are critically endangered; calls on the Commission and Member States to prohibit all eel catches until the European dee~~p- sea fish stocks, OJ L 28, 31.1.2023, p. 1.~~l is back within safe biological limits;

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Notes the Commission's intention to establish a joint special group; calls for the creation of an eel-specific expert group ensuring full and balanced representation of all relevant stakeholders; suggests that the main task of this body should be advising the Commission on the implementation of the Eel Regulation, providing feedback to Member States on their Eel Management Plans, exchanging information between the different parties and evaluating the progress on implementation at national and European level;

Amendment 244 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Calls on the Member States to regularly update their Eel Management Plans and adhere to their reporting obligations under the Eel Regulation;

Amendment 245 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7

~~The Member States’ reactions to the action plan~~deleted

Amendment 246 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7

~~The Member States’ reactions to the action plan~~deleted

Amendment 247 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

~~14. Notes the numerous declarations and clear statements by Member State representatives criticising the action plan and the associated uncertainties and rejecting the ban on bottom trawling in MPAs;~~deleted

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

~~14. Notes the numerous declarations and clear statements by Member State representatives criticising the action plan and the associated uncertainties and rejecting the ban on bottom trawling in MPAs;~~deleted

Amendment 249 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

~~14. Notes the numerous declarations and clear statements by Member State representatives criticising the action plan and the associated uncertainties and rejecting the ban on bottom trawling in MPAs;~~deleted

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 m (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2022 on the implementation of Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 1a, _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0226.

Amendment 250 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Note~~Regrets the numerous declarations and ~~clear~~ statements by Member State representatives criticising the action plan and the associated uncertainties and rejecting the ban on bottom trawling in EU MPAs; stresses that the Action Plan represents an opportunity for Member States to prepare a well-planned, organised, medium- and long-term transition to low impact fishing;

Amendment 251 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Notes the numerous declarations and clear statements by Member State representatives ~~criticising~~raising clear concerns with the action plan and the associated uncertainties and ~~rejecting the ban on~~especially questions the too simplistic approach taken by the Commission in relation to bottom trawling restrictions in MPAs;

Amendment 252 #

Motion for a resolution
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 linked to the action plan, underlining the lack of proportionality of certain measures;deleted

Amendment 253 #

Motion for a resolution
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 linked to the action plan, underlining the lack of proportionality of certain measures;deleted

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Takes ~~into account~~note of 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 linked to the action plan, underlining the lack of proportion~~the implementation of the Deep Sea Fisheries Regulation regarding the closure of certain areas between 400 and 800 m of depth where vulnerable ecosystems are located; recalls that this legislation was elaborated by the co- legislators and adopted through the EU’s legislative procedure; highlights that the European Parliament has joined the Commission in defending the validity of ~~certain measures~~the Deep Sea fisheries regulation;

Amendment 255 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~linked~~similar to the action plan, underlining the lack of proportionality of certain measures;

Amendment 256 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Considers the opposition between the development of the fishing industry and the protection of marine biodiversity to be a dead end, and believes that both can be achieved in a balanced way as stated by Member States representatives after the presentation of the Action Plan;

Amendment 257 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Welcomes that finally a special dialogue group between DG ENV, DG MARE, the Member States and interested stakeholders has been created; considers that the dim of the dialogue group should be to facilitate knowledge and possible discussions between fisheries and environmental communities, as well as to give Member States a platform for transparency and dialogue on the implementation of their roadmaps;

Amendment 258 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8

~~The Commission’s lack of clarity on the legal interpretation of its action plan~~Action plan legal consequences

Amendment 259 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8

The ~~Commiss~~legal implication’s ~~lack of clarity on the legal interpretation of it~~of the Commission’s action plan

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 n (new)

– having regard to the CNRS studies entitled “Underprotected Marine Protected Areas in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot” by Claudet et al., 2020 and “Critical gaps in the protection of the second largest exclusive economic zone in the world” by Claudet et al., 2021,

Amendment 260 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8

The ~~Commission’s lack of clarity on the~~ legal interpretation of ~~its~~the action plan

Amendment 261 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that, although the action plan is not legally binding, its implementation will entail significant socio-economic costs for Member States and their fleets~~, as it contains 90 measures in the form of regulations, guidance, analyses, roadmaps, studies, reports and initiativ~~; calls on Member States and the Commission to conduct the necessary studies in due time and in the preparation of new or reformed regulations or initiatives, as well as to take into account and engage the Marine Spatial Planning processes, either between region and sea basins, but also among different Member States and with third countries;

Amendment 262 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that, although the action plan is not legally binding, its implementation will entail significant socio-economic costs for Member States and their fleets, as it contains 90 measures in the form of regulations, guidance, analyses, roadmaps, studies, reports and initiatives; recalls that the Action Plan mainly foresees a better implementation of existing and adopted legislation;

Amendment 263 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that, although the action plan is not legally binding, its implementation will entail significant socio-economic costs for Member States and their fleets, as it contains 90 measures in the form of regulations, guidance, analyses, roadmaps, studies, reports and initiatives; recalls the need to support fishers in their ecological transition;

Amendment 264 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Regrets that Member States, stakeholders and parliamentarians created confusion regarding the legally- binding nature of the action plan, pretending that the Commission wanted to unilaterally impose a ban on bottom trawling in EU waters; notes that this confusion led to tensions;

Amendment 265 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Considers that the statements made by the Commissioner during the presentation of the action plan have caused only concern in the fisheries sector rather than confidence and positivity as regards the future;

Amendment 266 #

Motion for a resolution
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 267 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Recalls that there is no legal basis for the measures and deadlines put forward in the action plan;

Amendment 268 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes the Commission’s embarrassing lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, due to its many contradictory statements, particularly those made within 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 morale;deleted

Amendment 269 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes the Commission’s embarrassing lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, due to its many contradictory statements, particularly those made within 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 morale;deleted

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 o (new)

– having regard to the Special Report No 26/2020 of the European Court of Auditors entitled ‘EU protection is wide but not deep’,

Amendment 270 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes the Commission’s embarrassing lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, due to its many contradictory statements, particularly those made within 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 morale;deleted

Amendment 271 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes the Commission’s embarrassing lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, due to its many contradictory statements, particularly those made within 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 morale; the real consequences of EU’ss communication on the action plan are a further reduction in the level of trust of brown shrimp family businesses;

Amendment 272 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes ~~the Commission’s embarrassing~~with concern the lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, due to ~~its many contradictory statements, particularly those made with~~statements 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 morale~~not brought clarity and stability for the fishing sector;

Amendment 273 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Notes the Commission’s embarrassing~~Highlight that some lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan~~, due to its many contradictory statements, particularly~~ at those made within 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 currentoment of its presentation, had a damaging impact on many sectors of the fishing industry, at a time when the uncertainties caused by cumulative consequences of several crises are weighing heavily on their morale;

Amendment 274 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Calls on DG ENV to listen more closely to the specific characteristics of the fisheries sector before getting involved in joint initiatives with DG MARE;

Amendment 275 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Regrets the conflicting statements made within the Commission and, in particular, between the Directorate- General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and the Directorate-General for Environment, regarding the binding effects of the action plan;deleted

Amendment 276 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Regrets the conflicting statements made within the Commission and, in particular, between the Directorate- General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and the Directorate-General for Environment, regarding the binding effects of the action plan;deleted

Amendment 277 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Regrets th~~e confl~~at the communicati~~ng statements made within~~on from the Commission and, in particular, ~~between~~from 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 278 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Would like the Commission to clarify the legally binding aspects of the plan and how it will fit in with other legislation (Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Nature Restoration Law, farm- to-fork strategy, Water Framework Directive, etc.).

Amendment 279 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Considers that an action plan is not the appropriate place to introduce new rules and new deadlines;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 p (new)

– having regard to the August Climate Bulletin by the EU Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) published on 5 September 2023,

Amendment 280 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Supports the Commission President’s proposal, in her 2023 State of the Union address, that every new piece of legislation should undergo a competitiveness check; requests that the action plan and fisheries-related proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check on their socio- economic impact and their effect on coastal communities;deleted

Amendment 281 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Supports the Commission President’s proposal, in her 2023 State of the Union address, that every new piece of legislation should undergo a competitiveness check; supports the development of a modelling tool by the Commission by the end of 2023 to incorporate the concept of “natural capital” in economic decisions; requests that the action plan and fisheries-related proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check on their socio- economic impact and their effect on coastal communities;

Amendment 282 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Support~~Recalls the Commission President’s ~~proposal, in her~~ 2023 State of the Union address, stating that for every new piece of legislation ~~should undergo~~ a competitiveness check~~; requests that the action plan and fisheries-related proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check on their socio- economic impact and their effect on coastal communities~~ is conducted;

Amendment 283 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Supports the Commission President’s proposal, in her 2023 State of the Union address, that every new piece of legislation should undergo a competitiveness check; requests that the action plan and fisheries-related proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check on their socio- economic impact ~~and~~, their effect on coastal communities, and the cumulative effect on the availability of food supply;

Amendment 284 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Supports the Commission President’s proposal, in her 2023 State of the Union address, that every new piece of legislation should undergo a competitiveness check; requests that the action plan, andll fisheries-related legislative proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check on their socio- economic impact in the different activities and their effect on coastal communities;

Amendment 285 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Supports the Commission President’s proposal, in her 2023 State of the Union address, that every new piece of legislation should undergo a competitiveness check; requests that the action plan and fisheries-related proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check on their socio- economic impact and their effect on coastal communities and the recreational fisheries sector;

Amendment 286 #

Motion for a resolution
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.

Amendment 287 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Brings to the attention of the Commission that strategic documents, such as this Action Plan, should be presented to the different stakeholders in a more coordinated and clear way, and include full environmental, social and economic assessments and legal consequences of it implementation;

Amendment 288 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Rregrets the fact that the action plan is not accompanied by a socio-economic study, impact assessment or intermediary report and ~~that it~~ does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions; calls therefore for a socioeconomic impact study of the proposed measures taking into account the view of the stakeholders, in particular with regard to the ban on bottom fishing in protected areas, and calls for all necessary means, including incentives and compensatory mechanisms, to be put in place for a just and balanced transition;

Amendment 289 #

Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Regrets the fact that the action plan is not accompanied by a socio-economic study, impact assessment with a scientific analysis on a case by case basis or intermediary report and that it does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 q (new)

– having regard to the 2022 Commission Staff Working Document on Criteria and guidance for protected areas designations (SWD(2022) 23);

Amendment 290 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Regrets the fact~~Welcomes that the aAction pPlan ~~is not accompanied by a socio-economic study, impact assessment or intermediary report and that it does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions~~was preceded by an open targeted consultation as well as by independent scientific advice including specific trade-off analyses between fisheries value and the seafloor impact;

Amendment 291 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls for an action plan that, along with the CFP, contributes to productivity growth, a decent standard of living in the fisheries sector, including the small-scale fisheries sector, and stable markets, and that ensures the availability of food without compromising food security ~~or the sovereignty gap~~and food sovereignty; recalls, in this regard, that the future of food security will depend on healthy ecosystems as well as on our capacity to mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts; urges the Commission and Member States to improve the resilience of marine ecosystems and use all available legislative and administrative tools to mitigate the climate crisis and its impact;

Amendment 292 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Calls for an action plan that, along with the CFP~~Highlights that the action plan, should contribute for the equal sustainability of the environmental, social and economic pillars of the CFP; and, among others, contributes to productivity growth, a decent ~~standard of living in the fisheries sector, including~~working conditions in the sector, in particular for the small-scale fisheries ~~sector, and~~, stable markets, ~~and~~ that ensures ~~the availability of food without compromising food security or the sovereignty gap~~food security and improve EU strategic autonomy, and contribute to environmental recovery and protection;

Amendment 293 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls for an action plan that, along with the CFP, contributes to productivity growth, a decent standard of living in the fisheries sector, including the small-scale fisheries sector, and stable markets, and that ensures the availability of food without compromising food security or the sovereignty gap; considers that any such action plan will only be effective if it forms part of a wider reform of the CFP;

Amendment 294 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Ccalls for an aAction plan that, along with the CFP, should contributes to productivity growth, and a decent standard of living in the fisheries sector, including the small-scale fisheries sector, ands well as stable markets, and ~~that~~should ensures the availability of food without compromising food security ~~or the~~and sovereignty gap (in terms of seafood) and that allows fishers to make full use of the fishing quotas allocated to them;

Amendment 295 #

Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls for an action plan that, along with the CFP, contributes to productivity growth, a decent standard of living in the fisheries sector, including the small-scale fisheries sector, and stable markets, ~~and that ensures the availability of food without compromising food security or the sovereignty gap~~finds solutions that ensure a balance between nature protection, the sustainable use of natural resources and food security;

Amendment 296 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls for an action plan that, along with the CFP, contributes to sustainable productivity ~~growth~~, a decent standard of living in the fisheries sector, including the small- scale fisheries sector, and stable markets, and that ensures the availability of f~~ood without compromising food security or the sovereignty gap~~ish and healthy marine ecosystems, also in the medium and long term ;

Amendment 297 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Welcomes the Commission’s call for data collection on the impact of recreational fisheries, but underlines the need to also consider the economic and social impacts of sustainable recreational fishing activities; considers that recreational fisheries may offer excellent opportunities to foster the “Citizen Science”-approach;

Amendment 298 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Points out that the various sectors that make up the blue economy are interdependent. The loss or scrapping of fishing vessels therefore has a direct impact on European shipyards and other logistics services. Highlights in this regard the need for a decarbonisation and environmental protection strategy that focuses more on innovation than on eliminating fishing activity, and pays equal attention to the three pillars of sustainability – environmental, social and economic – while helping to retain skilled jobs in Europe.

Amendment 299 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Recalls that the objectives of the Action Plan and the CFP should also be pursued outside of EU waters where the EU fleet is active; calls on the EU to fully implement the external dimension of the CFP and the principle of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD);

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
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 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5

~~– having regard to its resolution of 27 April 2021 on chemical residues in the Baltic Sea, based on Petitions Nos 1328/2019 and 0406/20201 , _________________ 1 OJ C 506, 15.12.2021, p. 9.~~deleted

Amendment 300 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Cconsiders ~~it essential that any restrictions, whether based on the action plan or not,~~the BBNJ agreement to be an important victory at international level for the protection of the oceans; regrets, however, that the action plan does not give more support to Member States in their good practices by not insisting enough on the need to include the need for reciprocity in international actions; therefore considers it essential that any restrictions based or not on the action plan should be automatically mirrored in the case of products imported from ~~non-EU~~third countries, especially given that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes, to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, ands well as a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators;

Amendment 301 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers it essential that any restrictions, whether based on the action plan or not, should be automatically mirrored in the case of products imported from non-EU countries, especially given that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes~~, to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, and a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators;~~ and that thousands of tonnes of fish come from third countries, such as China, that even benefit from tariff preferences (autonomous tariff quotas), to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, and a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators; calls to that end for a study of the estimated increase in imports to be conducted in the light of the targets set in the plan (30% of the seas).

Amendment 302 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers it essential that any restrictions, whether based on the action plan or not, should be automatically mirrored in the case of products imported from non-EU countries, especially given that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes, to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, and a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators; stresses the need for awareness- raising campaigns among European citizens to promote the consumption of local and European fish, in particular from small-scale fisheries; supports initiatives such as Poiscaille (France), which promotes local fish and increases the value of unsold fish;

Amendment 303 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers it essential that any restrictions, whether based on the action plan or not, should be automatically mirrored in the case of products imported from non-EU countries, especially given that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes, to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, and a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators; calls on the EU, for example, to introduce bans on imports from tropical shrimp trawlers fleets which do not use turtle excluder devices;

Amendment 304 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers it essential that, a~~ny restrictions, whether based on the action plan or not, should be automatically mirrored in the case of product~~t international level, the EU work with other counterparts to implement rules with objectives and goals sim~~ported from non-EU countries, especially given~~ilar to the ones set in the CFP; recalls that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes, and that it is essential to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, and a level playing field between EU and non- EU operators;

Amendment 305 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Stresses the importance of preserving and ensuring the competitiveness of the European fisheries sector and the entire related supply chain by means of clear monitoring of the opaque activities of third country fleets;

Amendment 306 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Stresses that mobile bottom-fishing gear catches account for 25 % of total European catches and that effective measures on bottom trawling at EU level should not lead to an increase in imports, especially if foreign fleets use bottom trawling gear;deleted

Amendment 307 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. ~~Stress~~Notes that mobile bottom-fishing gear catches account for 25 % of total European catches ~~and~~; recalls that reducing fishing effort and implementing effective conservation measures does not lead to a reduction of economic profitability, as it leads to significant increases in fish biomass and abundance, as well as a reduction in fuel use and costs reductions; is of the opinion that effective measures on bottom trawling at EU level should not lead to an increase in imports, especially if foreign fleets use bottom trawling gear; considers that the same objectives should be defended at international level and that the EU should lead by example;

Amendment 308 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Stresses that mobile bottom-fishing gear catches account for 25 % of total European catches and that effective measures on bottom trawling at EU level should not lead to an increase in imports, especially if foreign fleets use bottom trawling gearnew management rules, in particular limitations or restrictions on the use of fishing techniques at EU level should not lead to an increase in imports of fishing products, in particular if these products are captured using fishing gears with limited or restricted use in EU;

Amendment 309 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Stresses that mobile bottom-fishing gear catches account for 25 % of total European catches and that effective measures on bottom trawling at EU level should not pose a threat to food security, nor lead to an increase in imports, especially if foreign fleets use bottom trawling gear;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 establishing specific conditions for fishing for deep-sea stocks in the north-east Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the north-east Atlantic and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/20022 , _________________ 2 OJ L 354, 23.12.2016, p. 1.deleted

Amendment 310 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Stresses that mobile bottom~~-fishing~~ gear catches account for 25 % of the total European catches and that effective measures on bottom trawling at EU level should not lead to an increase inof imports~~, especially~~ and even less so if foreign fleets use bottom trawling gear;s

Amendment 311 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Research and Innovation

Amendment 312 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Supports the Commission's proposals on the need and support for sufficient possibilities for scientific research and innovation projects since science plays a crucial role in finding solutions for the problems we face today; stresses the need to apply these in a coherent way with other EU policies, pilot projects and scientific projects dealing with innovation and research, for example on reducing the use of (micro)plastics; recalls that possibilities for scientific research and innovation projects is especially necessary to find more sustainable fishing techniques, since at this moment no viable alternatives for bottom trawling are available;

Amendment 313 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Recalls the need for consistency between the EU's international commitments and actions taken at European level; reiterates the commitments of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the EU Biodiversity Strategy's objective of protecting at least 30 % of the EU’s marine areas and strictly protecting at least 10 % of the EU’s marine areas by 2030;

Amendment 314 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Welcomes the measures proposed in the Action Plan to improve regional cooperation; calls on the Commission to come forward with ambitious mandates in Regional Sea Conventions and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), notably to ensure the conservation of endangered species, vulnerable marine ecosystems, and the protection of juveniles;

Amendment 315 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24b. Calls for a phase out of the use of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs); calls on the Commission to promote the reduction of the total number of FADs used by EU tuna fleets and support spatial closures in Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs);

Amendment 316 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)

24c. Welcomes the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies which marks a major step forward for ocean sustainability by prohibiting harmful fisheries subsidies for fisheries targeting overfished resources and responsible for IUU fishing; as a next step, urges action addressing equally harmful subsidies that encourage overcapacity which lead to ocean depletion worldwide;

Amendment 317 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 10 a (new)

Tackling other pressures to marine biodiversity

Amendment 318 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 d (new)

24d. Welcomes the Commission’s approach for a sustainable blue economy and its strategy to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); calls on the Commission to revise the strategy to extend the ecosystem-based approach beyond fisheries management to all sectors of the blue economy and to remain within planetary boundaries, including renewable energy and extractive industries, as part of an overarching legal and strategic framework;

Amendment 319 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 e (new)

24e. Expresses its deep concern regarding the impact of oil and gas extraction on the marine environment and on traditional activities such as fisheries; reiterates its call to phase out oil and gas extraction to achieve international climate commitments;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7

~~– having regard to the positions of the Member States presented at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 20 March 2023,~~deleted

Amendment 320 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 f (new)

24f. Reiterates its support for a moratorium, including at the International Seabed Authority, on deep- seabed mining until such time as the effects of deep-sea mining on the marine environment, biodiversity and human activities at sea have been studied and researched sufficiently and deep-seabed mining can be managed to ensure no marine biodiversity loss nor degradation of marine ecosystems; calls on the EU and its Member States to commit not to source minerals from the deep-seabed, to exclude such minerals from the EU supply chains, and not to finance deep- seabed mining activities;

Amendment 321 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11

~~Exemplarity of the fisheries sector~~Working for the transition with the fisheries sector and coastal communities

Amendment 322 #

Asger CHRISTENSEN, Pierre KARLESKIND, Catherine CHABAUD

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11

~~Exemplarity of the fisheries sector~~Conclusions

Amendment 323 #

Motion for a resolution
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 324 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Supports the fisheries sector’s ongoing efforts to improve selectivity of fishing techniques and reduce its environmental impact ~~without waiting for the Commission’s action plans; highlights the positive examples of~~; highlights the role of fishers as “guardians of the sea” and their commitment to restoring ~~species~~fish stocks ~~in protected areas while maintaining fishing activities, thanks to the major role played by fisheries stakeholder~~and contribution to the recovery of marine ecosystems;

Amendment 325 #

Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Supports the fisheries sector’s ongoing efforts to improve fishing techniques which increase the selectivity with a technology openness approach 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 the major role played by fisheries stakeholders;

Amendment 326 #

Motion for a resolution
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 the major role played by fisheries stakeholders;

Amendment 327 #

Motion for a resolution
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 plan~~s; highlights the positive examples of restoring species stocks in protected areas while maintaining fishing activities such as low-impact fisheries, thanks to the major role played by ~~fisheries~~ stakeholders in MPAs management;

Amendment 328 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Notes that, according to the Commission, tangible progress towards more sustainable fisheries on the ground has been achieved over the last decades thanks to the CFP; highlights however, that this recovery has come at high costs for most fishing communities; welcome, by way of example, that in 2009 the EU had only five fish stocks harvested sustainably and in 2022 there were over 60;

Amendment 329 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Highlights, the importance to include all stakeholders, from fishers to social society representatives, in the decision making process and implementation of actions that contribute for the protection and restoration of marine ecosystems, that can support sustainable and resilient fisheries;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7

~~– having regard to the positions of the Member States presented at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 20 March 2023,~~deleted

Amendment 330 #

Motion for a resolution
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 331 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11 a (new)

Governance

Amendment 332 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)

25b. Highlights that according to Commission data that fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic are generally within healthy ranges, and that a particularly positive example is the Bay of Biscay, which, in the latest assessment from 2021, became the first EU sea area with no stocks overfished;

Amendment 333 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 12

Ddelegated ~~acts in the action plan~~

Amendment 334 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Welcomes the creation of a special dialogue group between the Commission services, Member States representatives, administrations, representatives of the fisheries sectors and civil society in order to facilitate knowledge sharing, cooperation, technical discussions on implementing current legislation and a transparent dialogue on drafting and implementing Member States’ roadmaps;

Amendment 335 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

~~26. Recalls that it rejected the~~ delegated ~~act on SIOFA and reaffirms its commitment to scrutinising any incoming delegated or implementing acts linked to the action plan;~~

Amendment 336 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

~~26. Recalls that it rejected the~~ delegated ~~act on SIOFA and reaffirms its commitment to scrutinising any incoming delegated or implementing acts linked to the action plan;~~

Amendment 337 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

~~26. Recalls that it rejected the~~ delegated ~~act on SIOFA and reaffirms its commitment to scrutinising any incoming delegated or implementing acts linked to the action plan;~~

Amendment 338 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Recalls that it rejected the delegated act on SIOFA after providing the Commission of several opportunities to reconsider redrafting it in accordance with Union Law; demands that the Commission pay closer attention to the quality of its delegated acts and reaffirms its commitment to scrutinising any incoming delegated or implementing acts linked to the aAction pPlan;

Amendment 339 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Notes with concern that the Commission is relying increasingly in the exercise of its regulatory powers on formally non-binding instruments, such as communications, which are commonly referred to as 'soft law'; considers that any uncertainty between the intended meaning of the legal norms and their expression is likely to affect legal certainty and raise legal questions regarding institutional balance, as well as the limits and exercise of EU competences; believes therefore that Commission communications should not be used to put forward binding measures;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8

~~– having regard to the Council conclusions of 26 June 2023 on the fisheries policy package for a sustainable, resilient and competitive fisheries and aquaculture sector,~~deleted

Amendment 340 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Calls on the Commission to withdraw the current action plan;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9

~~– having regard to the letter from Commissioner Sinkevičius of 3 April 2023 on the legal consequences of the action plan for crab fishing with bottom trawls, known as ‘Krabbenfisherei’,~~deleted

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9

– having regard to the letter from Commissioner Sinkevičius of 3 April 2023 on the legal consequences of the action plan for ~~crab~~brown shrimp fish~~ing~~ery with bottom trawls, known as ‘Krabbenfischerei’,

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10

– having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 of 15 September 2022 determining the existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur3 , _________________ 3 OJ L 242, 19.9.2022, p. 1.deleted

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10

– having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 of 15 September 2022 determining the existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur3 , _________________ 3 OJ L 242, 19.9.2022, p. 1.deleted

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11

– having regard to its position of 11 July 2023 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Area covered under the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)4 , _________________ 4 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0265.deleted

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 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), including its objective of establishing a coherent network of 30 % of marine protected areas in the EU by 2030, and to Parliament’s resolution of 9 June 2021 thereon1a, _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0277.

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11

– having regard to its position of 11 July 2023 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Area covered under the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)4 , _________________ 4 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0265.deleted

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)

– having regards to the Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030 (COM(2021)236);

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 b (new)

– having regard to ‘Food from the Ocean’ report of the Science Advice for Policy by European Academies;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14

~~– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel5 , _________________ 5 OJ L 248, 22.9.2007, p. 17.~~deleted

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

– having regard to the draft report of its Committee on Fisheries on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel6 , _________________ 6 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/PECH-PR-749918_EN.pdf.deleted

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

– having regard to the draft report of its Committee on Fisheries on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel6 , _________________ 6 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/PECH-PR-749918_EN.pdf.deleted

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

– 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)

– having regard to the 2018 Commission’s Guidance on Aquaculture and Natura 2000;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
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 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 3 May 2022 titled 'Toward a sustainable blue economy in the EU: the role of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors'1a, _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0135.

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

– 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)

– 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)

– 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 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
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 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)

– having regard to Article 39 TFEU establishing the need to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural (and fishing) community, to assure the availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
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 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 b (new)

– having regard to the principle of proportionality (Article 5 TEU), under which Member States should propose the option that has the least impact on the fleet and that ensures effective nature conservation;

Amendment 59 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 c (new)

– having regard to Article 2(1)(b) of the Paris Agreement, which highlights the need to increase the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emission development, in a way that does not threaten food production;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)

– having regard its resolution of 21 January 2021 titled '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 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0017.

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
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 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas there is an urgent need to step up action at EU level to reverse the decline of marine ecosystems by tackling, where possible, human and natural pressures, supporting the positive recovery of s~~ome fish stock~~pecies and their habitats and encouraging scientific studies and any research and development that ensure sustainable fisheries and aquaculture; whereas the ocean covers 71 % of the earth’s surface, produces half of our oxygen, absorbs a third of CO2 emissions and 90 % of the excess heat in the climate system6a, and plays a unique and vital role as a climate regulator; whereas 3.3 billion people in the world rely on up to 20% on fisheries and aquaculture products for their animal protein intake6b; whereas it is our individual and collective responsibility to preserve the ocean, which is our global common; _________________ 6a UN Climate Action, ‘The ocean – the world’s greatest ally against climate change’. 6b FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022, Towards Blue Transformation.

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas there is an urgent need to step up global action at EU level to reverse the decline of marine ecosystems by tackling, ~~where~~all possible, human ~~and natural pressures, supporting the positiv~~pressures, it is essential that the fishing and aquaculture rsec~~overy of some fish stocks and encouraging scientific studies and any research and development that ensure~~tors contribute to this global objective through the recovery of fish stocks and the use of sustainable fisheries and aquaculture techniques;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas there is an urgent need to step up global action at EU level to reverse the decline of marine ecosystems by tackling~~, where~~ all possible, human ~~and natural pressures, supporting the positive recovery of some fish stocks and encouraging scientific studies and any research and development that ensure~~pressures it is essential that the fishing and aquaculture sectors contribute to this global objective through the recovery of fish stocks and use of sustainable fisheries and aquaculture techniques;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas there is an urgent need to step up action at EU level to reverse the decline of marine ecosystems by tackling, where possible, human and natural pressures, supporting the positive recovery of some fish stocks and encouraging constantly updated scientific studies and any research and development that ensure sustainable fisheries and aquaculture with the direct involvement of operators, local authority representatives and coastal communities;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas there is an urgent need to step up action at EU level to reverse ~~the~~real existing and scientifically described declines of marine ecosystems by tackling, where possible, human and natural pressures, supporting the positive recovery of some fish stocks and encouraging scientific studies and any research and development that ensure sustainable fisheries and aquaculture;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the EU has committed itself to delivering on the UN 2030 Agenda which includes SDG 14 "to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development"; whereas, through the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the EU committed itself to “ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30% of areas of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well- connected and equitable governed systems of protected areas”;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas healthy seabed habitats are a key part of a healthy planet and healthy marine ecosystems, providing nursery and spawning grounds for many species, contributing to maintaining the structure and functioning of marine food webs, and regulating the climate; whereas 79% of the coastal seabed is considered to be physically disturbed, mainly caused by bottom trawling, and a quarter of the EU’s coastal area has probably lost its seabed habitats; whereas the most intensely fished areas are trawled over 10 times a year;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the 2021-2030 Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive aquaculture call for the promotion of organic aquaculture and encourages the diversification of aquaculture production towards low trophic species such as shellfish and algae; whereas the ‘Food from the Ocean’ report underlines that developing mariculture of marine herbivores such as bivalves will help closing the EU’s seafood gap in a sustainable way;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the EU should play a significant role in safeguarding the health and sustainability of our oceans and seas by keeping them clean from (micro)plastics and forever chemicals like PFAS, since they have an enormous impact on sea life and thus on marine ecosystems which we all depend on;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
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 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas seabed biodiversity can recover if the pressure is diminished, for example by reducing mobile bottom fishing; whereas the recovery of seabed biodiversity brings major benefits for ecosystems and society, including fisheries, through the recovery of fish populations and helps to avoid the degradation of the marine environment;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas mobile bottom fishing remains widespread in EU waters, taking place in 80-90% of fishable areas in the Northeast Atlantic, including in many Natura 2000 sites and other Marine Protected Areas; whereas this undermines the achievement of global conservation targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity and risks threatening the progress on climate change mitigation;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas there are currently up to 23 EU legislative texts on nature restoration and over 40 texts taking into account communications, strategies and regulations, and numerous legislative texts on the environment and fisheries;deleted

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas there are currently up to 23 EU legislative texts on nature restoration and over 40 texts taking into account communications, strategies and regulations, and numerous legislative texts on the environment and fisheries; whereas in the last 10 years alone 26 legal acts and international agreements on the socio- economic dimension of fisheries and 80 communications, strategies and preparatory documents on the socio- economic dimension of fisheries have been adopted;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas there are currently ~~up to 23 EU~~numerous legislative texts ~~on nature re~~, communications, storat~~ion and over 40 texts taking into account communications, strategies and~~egies and regulations related to the protection of the environment and fisheries management; whereas all EU policies regulati~~ons, and numerous legislative texts on the environment and fisher~~ng to a sustainable blue economy should be managed through an integrated and coherent approach promoting synergies between all maritime activities;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
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 76 #

Motion for a resolution
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 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the EU must legally protect 30% of its land and seas by 2030 in line with the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF);

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas none of the three Parliament committees responsible for giving a position on the regulation on nature restoration have issued positive opinions on the European Commission's proposal, including the PECH Committee, which rejected the Commission's legislative proposal, a rare occurrence in the European legislative process;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
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 8 #

Motion for a resolution
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 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas the Action Plan should not hinder the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP) that seeks to guarantee the proper conservation and management of marine biological resources and 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 achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
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 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas 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;deleted

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
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 84 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 closed 87 areas, on the basis of a calculated probability of occurrence of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) without an analysis of the real conditions, 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;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas, according to European Commission data, in 2009 there were only five sustainably fished fish stocks in the EU but by 2022 this number had grown to more than 60 and the situation continues to improve1 a; _________________ 1 a COM(2023)103

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
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 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas in 2022 more than 200 scientists signed an open letter calling for a ban on bottom trawling and other industrial extractive activities in EU MPAs;

Amendment 88 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas mobile bottom gear is responsible for catching 25% of European landings;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas target 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30% of coastal and marine areas are effectively conserved and managed through MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognising and respecting the rights of local communities.

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 c (new)

– having regard to the IPBES 2019 report titled 'Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services',

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
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 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas various and highly critical reactions from Member States were voiced at the AGRIFISH Council meeting of 20 March 2023;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas the future of food security will depend on our capacity to tackle nature loss and the growing impacts of climate change;

Amendment 93 #

Rosanna CONTE, Annalisa TARDINO, Valentino GRANT, Massimo CASANOVA, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

Cc. whereas there is a strong scientific consensus that MPAs can be beneficial to fisheries because of their spillover effect and their positive effects on recruitment, for example through the protection of reproduction sites, juveniles and big mother fish with high reproductive capacities, as shown in various MPAs across the EU;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

Cc. whereas the EU's fisheries and environmental legislation already requires the seabed to be protected and restored. whereas, by way of example, in the Mediterranean Sea mobile bottom fishing is prohibited at a depth of more than 1 000 metres;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

Cc. whereas on 15 September 2022 the Regional Government of Galicia initiated legal action in response to the Commission’s implementing act of, which aimed to close 87 sensitive zones to all bottom fishing gear in the EU waters of the North-East Atlantic;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
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 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)

Cd. whereas the 2023 European- average temperature for summer was the fifth warmest for the summer seasons; whereas in summer 2023 there have been record-breaking high sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the North Atlantic and for the global ocean including marine heatwaves in several areas around Europe; whereas August 2023 is estimated to have been around 1.5°C warmer than the preindustrial average for 1850-1900; whereas North Atlantic sea surface temperatures broke the previous daily record on 5 August 2023 and almost every day in August since has remained above this level, reaching a new record of 25.19°C on 31 August;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)

Cd. whereas the scrutiny of the Action Plan was carried out by national parliaments in 8 Member States, and in particular a political dialogue was carried out by the French Senate and National Assembly and the Italian Chamber of Deputies provided a negative assessment;

Amendment 99 #