26 Amendments of Predrag Fred MATIĆ related to 2020/2273(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas EU fishing, aquaculture and processing sectors subscribe to the highest standards ofwhich, however, are in need of revision and improvement in order to ensure environmental and social sustainability throughout the entire value chain, including labour rights and animal health and welfare, and provide high- quality seafood products, thus playing a fundamental role in food security and nutritional wellbeing to an ever increasingthe population; whereas by restricting fishing, a number of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are jeopardisedit is therefore of utmost importance to achieve a fishing model that reflects a balance between the three fundamental dimensions (environmental, social and economic) put forward by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 objectives;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. wWhereas EU fishers and fish farmers play an essential role across the Union and must continue to contribute to and participate in the development of policies that ensure the environmental, economic and social sustainability they need to continue providing social and economic support to many coastal and inland communities;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the EU Biodiversity Strategy does notshould take into account at all that there have beenthe considerable improvements in EU fish populations; where in some of the EU's seas; whereas they should serve as an example, such as in the north-east Atlantic where there has been a 50 % increase in the number of fish at sea in only 10 years and overfishing in the EU is at an all-time low, whereas almoswe are mindful of the need for the latter to be eliminated altogether and whereas we must ensure that 100 % of the landings from EU- regulated stocks come from stocks fished at the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas marine biodiversity is seriously endangered, as highlighted in the 2019 IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Fifth Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-5) and the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Welcomes the fact that fisheries are included in the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives; stresses the need for fisheries, aquaculture and marine issues to be an integral part of the global framework for biodiversity in the Union.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that effectivesustainably managed fished populations are more productive than non-fished onesin the long run; stresses, therefore, the fact that, in certain cases, closing fishing areas might not be compatible withat in order to avoid the closure of fishing areas that may jeopardise social welfare and economic prosperity – essential components of the sustainability – and with the SDGs on food security and poverty alleviationof coastal populations – the ecosystem conditions required by each fishing basin must be guaranteed so as to enable fisheries resources to be maintained or even progressively increased over time;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that marine protected areas (MPAs) are a tool, not an objective per se; underlines the fact that setting a protection objective through the means of a conservation figure (i.e. a percentage)n essential tool for curbing the current loss of biodiversity in the marine environment and for its irrelevantrestoration, since the most important thing is to ensure that the established protection zones truly cover an area with an ecological value that needs to be protectedcover the areas of high ecological value which must be protected; stresses that in order to establish such areas, socio-economic impact studies and compensatory solutions for the coastal population concerned are a prerequisite, but recalls that less than 1% of marine areas currently enjoy strict protection in the EU;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that strengthening and efficiently implementing existing closed areas would be much more efficient and meaningfulto be an urgent necessity; calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish, as a matter of urgency, specific management plans for these areas, defining clear conservation objectives and measures for their control, based on an integrated approach, developed on the basis of methods and techniques that enable the active participation of affected parties in these coastal communities, such as the fisheries sector, the scientific community and social and environmental organisations, so that they can actively engage in the co-management of these areas;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that establishing protection zones doesno-take zones is essential to ensure the protection of the restocking and breeding areas of many species essential for biodiversity, such as marine cetaceans, which in certain cases do not have to be incompatible with the practice of activities, including extrsustainable tourism active onities, as long as they do not compromise the values of those protected areas and provided that they are established under scientific advice and that there is adequate management and control, but that they can bring great alternative benefits to coastal areas, as well as serving as important sites for education and research on marine biodiversity; points out the need for new areas created under this strategy to be included in the Natura 2000 framework and, where appropriate, supplemented by additional designations by the Member States;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that, according to the new Technical Measures Regulation2 , the Commission must submit a report to Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2020, and that only in cases where there is evidence that the objectives and targets have not been met, the Commission may propose measures; _________________ 2 OJ L 198/105, 25.7.2019.
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on therefore on the Commission to wait for the abovementioned reports before proposing an action plandraw up an action plan in order to be able to act to prevent further degradation of biodiversity;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls the importance of proper and diligent implementation of the Control Regulation, the reform of which is to be adopted soon and which will promote the protection of marine biodiversity in European seas;
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Stresses the importance of continuing to implement a zero-tolerance policy towards illegal, unregulated and undocumented fishing, and of promoting sustainable fishing by combating overfishing and by-catches of endangered species as well as other species;
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Calls for third countries, in particular neighbouring countries, to be required to monitor the fishery resources in their waters in an equivalent manner in order to ensure a healthy ecosystem in marine habitats that do not depend on artificial man-made borders;
Amendment 124 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 5
Subheading 5
Amendment 129 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Expresses its deep regret over the obvious discriminatorythe need for fair treatment of fisheries compared to othat ofer sectors such as agriculture; welcomes the fact the proposed strategy outlines that ‘the progress towards the targets will be under constant review, and adjustment if needed, to mitigate against undue impact on biodiversity, food security and farmers’ competitiveness’; notes, however, that this sentence, which is a necessary safety net, is clearly discriminatory since it fails toshould equally mention fishers and aquaculture producers;
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Expresses the need to accord the fisheries sector the importance it justly deserves in order to guarantee in all cases the socio-economic sustainability of all people affected by the transformation processes of the marine environment required to guarantee the biodiversity indices needed by the various ecosystems to remain healthy and to continue to provide the environmental services resulting from natural processes, including, where necessary, the promotion of new alternatives that the blue economy will offer to fishing communities and the associated training processes that they may require;
Amendment 143 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Strongly denounces the fact thatCalls for the sStrategy accunot to criminalises bottom trawling, as ‘the 'most damaging activity to the seabed’', withouand demands that any in-depth analysis to back it upbe carried out and made available, including relevant environmental impact assessments in each area where this gear is used, thus clarifying the negative or positive consequences it may have on each of them, and facilitating decision- making;
Amendment 151 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that gears and techniques should not be demonised; recalls that bottom trawling can also enhance biodiversity in certain sandy seabeds and that it is one of the most common and most regulated fishing gears in Europe; stresses that it is the oncurrently the most economically viable way to catch many key species that we eat and that almost allmany of them are fished at MSY levels and that many of them are Marine Stewardship Council certified; calls for corrective measures to be proposed with realistic deadlines for bottom trawling fisheries not yet managed at MSY levels, such as those included in the Multi- Annual Management Plan for Demersal Species in the Western Mediterranean Sea;
Amendment 159 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Highlights the need to simplify administrative procedures on aquaculture activities, especially when in Natura 2000 areas, and asks the Commission to update its guidance on ‘Aquaculture and Natura 2000 areas’, where harmful interactions with the marine environment must be avoided;
Amendment 179 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes the high level of ambition when setting targets; strongly recommends, however, that such targets should not be legally binding without an exhaustive prior impact assessment, and that they should be set on a case-by-case basis, and be adapted to local specificities and to the level required to protect nature on the basis of fishery co-management groups; recommends that such targets should also take into account socio- economic considerations and the need to ensure a long-term resilience of the fisheries and aquaculture value chain, be proportionate with the objective pursued and have a solid scientific basis;
Amendment 202 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 206 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Calls on the Commission to develop revised, appropriate and ambitious plans and regulations to prevent the incursion of invasive species in the various European seas and oceans with comprehensive protocols to prevent, above all, the entry of species that can have a major negative impact on biodiversity, but also on fisheries, resulting in large economic losses, and including the design of lines of action for the management of invasive species and in order to minimise the negative effects that invasive species can cause on the different sectors and ecosystems in the event that such incursions cannot be avoided;