Activities of Manuel PIZARRO related to 2020/2273(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives (debate)
Amendments (79)
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 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas EU fishing, aquaculture and processing sectors subscribe toevolve in order to meet with the highest standards of 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 increasing population; whereas by restricting fishing, a number ofthe lack of consideration of fishing, aquaculture and processing sectors, several of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are jeopardisedmay be impossible to achieve;
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 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas EU fishers and fish farmers play an essential role across the Union and must continue providingproviding healthy foods of high nutritional value, but also a fundamental social and economic support to many coastal and inland communities;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. Whereas the degradation of habitats and disruption of migration corridors by, for example, river modifications and dams, overexploitation for their caviar and meat, as well as pollution have driven sturgeons to the brink of extinction; whereas the drastic decrease of the number of spawners, associated with the population decline, trigger the failure of the natural reproduction, reducing the chance of the few remaining males and females to meet and spawn;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. Whereas the data held by the research institutes indicate that the populations of sturgeon species are fragmented, missing certain generations, and the species of sturgeon natural reproduction is deficient, the number of adults migrating to the Danube for reproduction is extremely low and the species sturgeon is on the verge of extinction;
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 28 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the EU Biodiversity Strategy does notshould take into account at all that there have been considerable improvements in EU fish populationsimprovements in EU fish populations resulting from the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); whereas in the north-east Atlantic 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 almost 100 % of the landings from EU- regulated stocks in the Atlantic come from stocks fished at consistent withe maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels;
Amendment 30 #
Da. whereas despite the improvement of sustainability verified in the exploitation of marine resources in some sea basins, there are still areas that present worrying situations, in particular the Mediterranean Sea; this sea has the highest percentage of marine protected areas in the European Seas, but at the same time it is the one that presents the greatest concerns about the general state of its resources, habitats and biodiversity;
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 34 #
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas scientific studies on the subject have raised concerns about the long-term negative impact on fishing populations, ocean biodiversity and in the marine environment of the use of certain fishing techniques;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
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 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that effectively managed fished populations are more productive than non-fished ones; stresses, therefore, the fact that, in certain c, according to FAO1a, it is becoming increasingly clear that intensively managed fisheries have seen increases in average stock biomases, closing fishing areas might not be compatible with social welfare and economic prosperity – essential components ofwith many reaching or maintaining biologically sustainable levels, while fisheries with less-developed management suystainability – and with the SDGs on food security and poverty alleviation;ems are in poor shape; _________________ 1aFAO (2020), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020 - Sustainability in action, Rome.
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that marine protected areas (MPAs) are a tool, not an objective per se; underlines the fact thatn important management tool for the restauration and protection of habitats and species with known positive impact in fishing activities, inside and nearby of those MPAs; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)1b underlines the fact that besides the importance of setting a protection objectives through the means of a conservation figure (i.e. a percentage) is irrelevant, 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 protected;, it is also important to establish MPAs covering representative areas with ecological representation value and connected to others, as well as to wider seascapes that are equitably and effectively managed; _________________ 1bSecretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020) Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal
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 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises the fact that, the implementation of MPAs with strictly restricted or closed fishing areas might have immediately social and economic negative impacts in fishing sector and local communities, that difficult the acceptance of this management tools; the negative impact in the social and economic pillars, of three PCP sustainability pillars, can have immediate direct impact in the SDGs goals, like SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger);
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers fundamental that the implementation of any MPA should be based in the best available scientific knowledge, associated with a propped specific impact assessment and in close coordination with local authorities, communities and stakeholders;
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 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers thaextremely urgent strengthening and efficiently implementing existing closed areas would be much more efficient and meaningfulmarine protected areas; calls on the Member States to stablish and truly implement management plans for all MPAs, including it monitoring, surveillance and effective control; stresses that only proper governance of this areas would contribute for their objectives;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes with concern that some man-made wetlands are under a constant pressure by the improper management of certain protected species of birds and mammals, such as Great Cormorant, herons or otters, which are seriously damaging the aquaculture farms bringing the farmers on the edge of abandoning the activity and thus leading to more damage on the overall biodiversity;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Highlights that, when successfully implemented, MPAs offer socio-economic benefits, especially for coastal communities, the fisheries and other sectors like tourism; stresses that MPAs perform key ecological functions for the reproduction of marine species and protection of habitats and improve their resilience to climate change;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Acknowledges that fish farming and seafood aquaculture generate the lowest carbon footprint in the animal husbandry sector; encourages thus that the Biodiversity Strategy should recognize, support and promote environmental friendly management practices developed by farmers;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on the Commission to urgently and temporarily transfer the sturgeons from Annex V to Annex II or even Annex I to Habitats Directive 92/43 / EEC, until scientifically determined that wild stock of sturgeons are no longer red listed under the IUCN list;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 2 a (new)
Subheading 2 a (new)
Stresses the emergency to establish “fish stock recovery areas” (or “no take zones”) in the Black Sea, to allow the recovery of the wild populations of sturgeons, as such areas were proven beneficial both for biodiversity conservation and for fishery management;
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 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that establishing protection zonestrictly protected areas does not have to be incompatible with the practice of activities, includingnon- extractive onactivities, as long as they do not compromise the values of those protected areas and provided that they are designed and established under best scientific advice, with high stakeholder participation, and that there is adequate management, monitoring, surveillance and control;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that no-take zones can, and should, be used as Ocean Literacy sites improving marine and environmental awareness of local communities and visiting population; stresses that non-extractive uses of no- take zones can play a major role in the surveillance and even monitoring of the area with the participation of visitors in Citizen Science actions and programmes;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Recognises the difficulties associated to the compatibilization of different uses of the sea and conflicts managements between some uses of space including recreational and leisure activities; highlights that technology is in constant evolution and, as consequence, all activities also evolves, being necessary consider spatial planning as evolutionary;
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the importance of proper and inclusive spatial planning, which takes sufficiently into account the environmental, social and economic sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture, pointing to the need for allocating space to existing and new fishing grounds and aquaculture farms;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls the need to consider all other blue economy activities in spatial planning, in particular recreational and leisure activities; stresses the need to avoid banning entire sectors from marine protected areas; in the case of fishing, calls on the Commission to distinguish different types of fishing gear and to take into account fishing effort and specific impact, to determine which activity should, or not, be restricted; underlines that some fishing activities, such as small- scale or recreational fisheries, can be very selective and even non-extractive;
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Recognise the need to implement an action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems, considering the urgency of reversing biodiversity losses; therefore, considers necessary the implementation of additional and complementary measures to the CFP framework;
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)CFP provides for a robust regulatory framework with sophisticated tools, which has set down the dates of publication of specific reports: the Commission is to report to Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the CFP by 31 December 2022;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls also 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, 25.7.2019, p. 105.
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 114 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
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 123 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 5
Subheading 5
Amendment 124 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 5
Subheading 5
Amendment 128 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Expresses its deep regret over the obvious discriminatorythe need to a fair treatment of fisheries sector compared to othat of agricultureer activities; 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 to mentionshould treat at the same level of importance fishers and aquaculture producers by referring them;
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 131 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Amendment 134 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 141 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Points out the need of a global approach to the drivers of marine biodiversity loss including not only all forms of pollution, but also shipping, coastal and near shore uses, dredging, seabed mining among others;
Amendment 142 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
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 147 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Recognises that bottom trawling can have damaging impact on the seabed depending on the fishery and the particularities of the fished areas; highlights, however, that this impact can be mitigated to reduce the pressure to seabed and minimising the impacted area with the implementation of several mitigation measures;
Amendment 149 #
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 itRecalls that bottom trawling is one of the most common and most regulated fishing gears in Europe; stresses that, and it is the only viable way to catch many key species that we eat and that almost all of them are fished at MSY levels and that many of them are Marine Stewardship Council certifiedwithin the quantities for Europeans consumption demands;
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 153 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the Commission to implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries management by adopting and implementing actions to improve fishing gear selectivity, contributing to survival of non-target species, and implement measures to reduce the impact of fishing technics on marine ecosystems; fisheries management plans should take into account the results of scientific studies that analyse fishing practices and their impact on species, habitats, ocean biodiversity and marine environments, and contribute with solutions to solve negative impacts identified, including limiting their use or introducing new technological mitigation solutions;
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 160 #
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 full implement and, if needed, update its guidance on ‘Aquaculture and Natura 2000 areas’;
Amendment 161 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers that ecosystem services provided by aquaculture, of which the maintenance of biodiversity is an important one, must be taken into consideration and supported; underlines that the value of the ecosystem services provided by pond farming is greater than that of any agricultural sectors, however the support for these complex natural value services created and maintained by aquaculture is significantly lower than in agriculture;
Amendment 164 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Some forms of aquaculture, such as pond carps farming, lagoon aquaculture, shellfish and algae aquaculture, especially traditionally managed are not only having a long history being integrated in the ecosystem but are of the utmost importance for the maintenance of wetland habitats improving biodiversity, and, consequently are providing a full range of ecosystem services, not only as a healthy food provider, but also regulation services such as carbon sequestration, nutrients removal, bio-remediation or cultural services;
Amendment 168 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Embraces the ambitions set out in the Water Framework Directive3 and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive4 ; highlights that aquaculture can play a role in restoring degraded marine and freshwater ecosystems, with known contributions from low impact aquaculture farms for the conservation objectives of areas such as wetlands and lagoons; _________________ 3 OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p.1. 4 OJ L 164 25.6.2008, p. 19.
Amendment 174 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses the importance of adequate funding through the European Maritime and, Fisheries Fundand Aquaculture Fund and Horizon Europe in order to achieve the EU’s goals on biodiversity;
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 180 #
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, and that they should be set on a case-by-case basis, adapted to local specificities and to the level required to protect nature; recommends that such targets should also take into account socio-economic considerations, should be backed by reconversion programs and alternative livelihood to fishing communities 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 183 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes the high level of ambition when setting targets; and strongly recommends, however, that such targets should not be legally binding, and that they should be set on a case-by-case basis, adapbe translated to locregional specificities and to the level required to protect nature; recommends that such targets should also take into account socio-economic considerations and the need to ensure a, not only the long-term resilience of themarine ecosystems, but also to the long-term sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture value chain,; these targets should be proportionate with the objective pursued and have a solid scientific basis;
Amendment 185 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Emphasises that the designation of any MPA and development of all associated management measures should be based on the best available scientific knowledge and advice;
Amendment 188 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the importance of the constructive, effective and equal consultation of all blue economy activities, in particular fishers and aquaculture producers in any decision related to biodiversity; management tolls and spatial planning related with biodiversity and any other protection action of habitats, species or environment;
Amendment 193 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Emphasises the importance of ensuring an adequate and fair income to fishers and farmers, as well as a level playing field with imported food; reiterates that the EU has the responsibility to promote a global and equitable sustainable development of all countries; stresses that the needs of some developing countries are not always compatible with EU ambitious environmental objectives; highlights that highly-demanding measures within the EU will significantly increase imports from third countries with lower environmental standards, resulting in negative impacts on the world biodiversity and thus undermining the objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, as well as EU International Ocean Governance goals;
Amendment 199 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes the Commission’s remark that in order ‘to have healthy and resilient societies we need to give nature the space it needs’; stresses, howeverd that, to that aim, sustainability needs to be seen from a holistic perspective, accounting for its environmental, social and economic aspects, and, that if we are to have healthy and resilient societies not only do we need to give nature the space it needs, but also give to fishermens and aquaculture producers the space they need;
Amendment 202 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 203 #
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;
Amendment 208 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Welcomes the restoration of free flowing of rivers in a sustainable way, taking into account the environmental, social and economic aspects, investing in technology and innovation for the creation of fishing migrating routes, without hindering the right of Member States to decide on their energy mix, the economic activity of hydropower plants, the energy security and the environmental benefits of hydropower;