Activities of Pietro BARTOLO related to 2023/2124(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries
Amendments (47)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
– having regard to the Commission communication of 21 February 2023 entitled ‘EU Action Plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries’ (COM(2023)0102) ) (“Action Plan”),
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
Citation 8
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
Citation 9
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11
Citation 11
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14
Citation 14
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
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, whereall possible, human and natural pressures, supporting the positivpressures, it is essential that the fishing and aquaculture rsecovery of some fish stocks and encouraging scientific studies and any research and development that ensuretors 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
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 ensurepressures 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 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deplores the fact that, despitePraise 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 tosustainability 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 pollutadifferents such as nitrites, plastics and otherources of pollution marine litter or wastely from land- based activities, which are beyond the control of fishers and pose a significant threat to their livelihoods and marine ecosystems;
Amendment 115 #
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 all the planet and the populations that rely on them;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that Commissioner Sinkevičius’s athe Action pPlan lacks amust be coherent approach with other CommissUnion 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 the fight against rising prices,o contribute to enhancinge the social dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and strengthening economic growth and employment;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
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 wayfollowing 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 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists on the factHighlights that MPAs are diverse in terms of size, species, habitats and ecosystems targetedo be protected are established with different conservation objectives, and should therefore not be seen as uniform areas; considers, therefore, that the action plan supporthas an oversimplified approach, in particular by proposing a blanket ban on certain fishing gear, thus giving the impression that all MPAs should be treatcan 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, ond approach on the definition and implementation of MPAs, taking into account the cone hand, and maintaining fishing activity, on thservation objectives but also activities that traditionally use otherose areas;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
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 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5
Subheading 5
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
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 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion that closing fishing zones to bottom trawleHighlights 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 failsdifferent fishing grounds ; stresses that it is necessary to take into account, among other things, the fishers’ understanding ofavailable resources possible to be captured with the seabed 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 conditionsimpact ecosystems that are in a healthy state;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that this surplus of more or less short-term actions detracts from the coherence and legitimacy of initiatives that sConsiders 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 takinge into account socio-economic, technical and scientific aspects;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
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 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. EmphasisesCalls 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 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that measures taken outside the context of the Eel Regulation may undermine the coherence of adopted policy; deplores the ftherefore, has deep concerns with the non-holistic approacth thataken 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 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7
Subheading 7
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8
Subheading 8
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
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 273 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes the Commission’s embarrassingHighlight 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 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
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 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
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 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for an action plan that, along with the CFPHighlights 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, includingworking 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 gapfood security and improve EU strategic autonomy, and contribute to environmental recovery and protection;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
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 productt international level, the EU work with other counterparts to implement rules with objectives and goals simported from non-EU countries, especially givenilar 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 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
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 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11
Subheading 11
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
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 speciesfish stocks in protected areas while maintaining fishing activities, thanks to the major role played by fisheries stakeholderand contribution to the recovery of marine ecosystems;
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
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 333 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 12
Subheading 12
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26