19 Amendments of Anja HAZEKAMP related to 2023/2124(INI)
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
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 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
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)
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 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deplores the fact that, despite the EU fisheries sector’s great efforts and progress towards protecting marine ecosystems and making them sustainable, 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, pose aing significant threats to theirfishers' livelihoods and marine ecosystems;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
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 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
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 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists on the fact that MPAs are diverse in terms of size, species, habitats and ecosystems targeted and should not be seen as uniform areas; considers, therefore, that the action plan supports an oversimplified approach, in particular by proposing a blanket ban on certain fishing gear, thus giving the impression that all MPAs should be treated in the same way; 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 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
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 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that MPAs and all strictly protected areas are not an end in themselves and that their designation as protected areas will 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 sanctuaryr destructive activities within those areas;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
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 conditionto prohibit mobile bottom fishing in MPAs;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises the complexity and diversity of the management of the eel stockeel 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 stockpopulations;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
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)
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 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
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 deep- sea fish stocks, OJ L 28, 31.1.2023, p. 1.l is back within safe biological limits;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
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 food without compromising food security or the sovereignty gapish and healthy marine ecosystems, also in the medium and long term ;