Contents

1.

Opening of the sitting

3

2.

Composition of political groups

3

3.

European Citizens' Initiative ‘Stop Finning – Stop the trade’ (debate)

3

4.

Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries – Agreement of the IGC on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (High Seas Treaty) (debate)

12

5.

Towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector (debate)

30

6.

Resumption of the sitting

36

7.

Voting time

36

7.1.

Media freedom and freedom of expression in Algeria, the case of journalist Ihsane El-Kadi (RC-B9-0242/2023, B9-0239/2023, B9-0242/2023, B9-0243/2023, B9-0244/2023, B9-0245/2023, B9-0248/2023) (vote)

36

7.2.

Belarus: the inhumane treatment and hospitalisation of prominent opposition leader Viktar Babaryka (RC-B9-0251/2023, B9-0250/2023, B9-0251/2023, B9-0252/2023, B9-0253/2023, B9-0254/2023, B9-0255/2023) (vote)

37

7.3.

Myanmar, notably the dissolution of democratic political parties (RC-B9-0240/2023, B9-0240/2023, B9-0241/2023, B9-0246/2023, B9-0247/2023, B9-0249/2023) (vote)

37

7.4.

Empowering consumers for the green transition (A9-0099/2023 - Biljana Borzan) (vote)

37

7.5.

Objection pursuant to Rule 112 (2) and (3): Genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 x 3006-210-23 (B9-0232/2023) (vote)

37

7.6.

Roadmap on a Social Europe: two years after Porto (B9-0235/2023, B9-0236/2023) (vote)

37

7.7.

Adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (B9-0234/2023) (vote)

37

7.8.

Towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector (B9-0233/2023) (vote)

37

8.

Resumption of the sitting

37

9.

Composition of committees and delegations

38

10.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

38

11.

Prohibiting chick and duckling killing in EU law (debate)

38

12.

Explanations of vote

45

12.1.

Empowering consumers for the green transition (A9-0099/2023 - Biljana Borzan)

45

12.2.

Roadmap on a Social Europe: two years after Porto (B9-0235/2023, B9-0236/2023)

46

12.3.

Adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (B9-0234/2023)

46

12.4.

Towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector (B9-0233/2023)

47

13.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

47

14.

Dates of forthcoming sittings

47

15.

Closure of the sitting

47

16.

Adjournment of the session

48

Verbatim report of proceedings of 11 May 2023

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ

Αντιπρόεδρος

1.   Opening of the sitting

(Η συνεδρίαση αρχίζει στις 9.01)

2.   Composition of political groups

Πρόεδρος. – Η Caterina Chinnici δεν ανήκει πλέον στην Ομάδα των Σοσιαλιστών και Δημοκρατών και προσχωρεί στην Ομάδα του ΕΛΚ από τις 11 Μαΐου 2023.

3.   European Citizens' Initiative ‘Stop Finning – Stop the trade’ (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί της Ευρωπαϊκής Πρωτοβουλίας Πολιτών ‘Stop Finning – Stop the trade’ (Σταματήστε την πρακτική αφαίρεσης πτερυγίων – Σταματήστε το εμπόριο) (2023/2624(RSP)).

Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – Mr President, good morning to you and to everyone on this lovely Thursday morning. First of all, I really would like to congratulate the people that took the initiative on the ‘Stop Finning – Stop the Trade’ European Citizens' Initiative. Within two years, having more than 1.1 million signatures from all the 27 Member States is, to us, really a key example of a very successful European Citizens' Initiative, which then also should be taken seriously and should get a follow-up and that's, of course, the point of the discussion also today.

Just on the matter, we know already that it is forbidden to remove fins on board ships and also to trade them. So we need to bring them on land in an entire form. But we also know that still the EU remains a huge hub for shark fins, and that it's a major export and transit centre for Asia. Relatively speaking, the role of Europe is getting bigger because global trade is going down and the European role remains comparable and with that, relatively speaking, our role becomes bigger, and that is undeniable. I know sometimes the industry tries to deny the facts, which you cannot do.

This also, of course, relates very much back to the discussion we had yesterday on restoration law. When we are talking about restoring nature and restoring our ecosystem, sharks are crucial for our marine ecosystems, so we do want to see action from the Commission. Sharks are protected under CITES and also, last year in Panama, more shark species were added to CITES Appendix II, showing that now more or less 90% of the traded sharks and ray species are falling under CITES, which shows that we have serious concerns with sharks.

So it's an endangered species. The practices are cruel, so let's act on it. That's also the very clear demand from the citizens, and this is also then the very clear question to the Commission. You will probably say nice words about the initiative, but we want to hear concretely what is the Commission going to do with this demand from our citizens.

Asger Christensen, for Fiskeriudvalget. – Hr. formand! Jeg er meget glad for at kunne være med til at indlede den her debat i dag, om det europæiske borgerinitiativ ‘Stop Finning – stop handelen’ her i salen. Der er godt en million, der har skrevet under på dette initiativ, og det skal vi tage meget alvorligt som parlamentarikere, at der er så mange, der ønsker at få denne debat synliggjort. Det handler om demokrati, og derfor er den her debat meget, meget vigtigt. Hajer spiller en vigtig rolle i økosystemet. Siden midten af firserne har hajer været udsat for stadig større fiskeripres og en stadig større efterspørgsel på hajfinner, især på det asiatiske marked.

EU har notorisk handlet i 2003 og igen i 2013. I over 20 år har det været forbudt at skære finner af hajer i EU-farvande og på alle EU-fartøjer – og der er det, at det ser fuldstændig vanvittigt ud, at andre steder der skærer man hajfinnerne af og smider resten af kroppen ud i vandet. Det er simpelthen uetisk, og specielt når der er tale om en truet art. Det gør EU til en førende aktør på verdensplan i forhold til at bevare og forvalte hajer på en bæredygtig måde. Formålet med deres initiativ er at gå et skridt videre og forbyde handel med hajfinner, og herunder import, eksport og transit med disse produkter. I marts sidste år blev det her forslag præsenteret i PECH-udvalget af initiativtagerne og for kommissæren. Kommissæren meddelte dengang, at Kommissionen vil komme med en meddelelse inden juli '23, og det håber jeg så, at vi ser her i løbet af kort tid. Dagens debat er en god mulighed for at udveksle synspunkter omkring den her alvorlige problemstilling. Jeg glæder mig til debatten. Og tak, fordi at alle deltager i den demokratiske proces om sådan et alvorligt problem.

Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members. The European citizens' initiative that we are discussing today rightly points to a worrying situation of sharks globally and to the role that demand for shark fins in Asia plays in this.

We share these concerns of citizens, and therefore we are active both within and outside the European Union when it comes to protecting sharks and promoting sustainable fishing. In view of the international dimension of the shark fin trade, it is important to ensure adequate rules within the EU and internationally. The EU actively promotes the conservation and sustainable management of sharks as well as the ‘fins naturally attached’ policy in regional fisheries management organisations and in other relevant international forums.

The practice of shark finning is already banned in all regional fisheries management organisations. Some shark species need protection through a retention ban, whilst other species can still be fished sustainably through appropriate conservation and management measures, and those conservation and management measures may include a limitable total allowable catch

Since 2008, EU law, and namely the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, requires that shark populations in our waters are healthy and abundant and that human activities do not harm them. With the nature restoration law proposal, we continue our efforts by seeking the restoration of the habitats of shark and ray species.

The EU also works actively under two international conventions to protect sharks. Firstly, the EU is a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, which concerns research, sustainable fishing, habitat protection and international cooperation. Secondly, the EU is an active member of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which among other things regulates trade in sharks and their products. So the EU promotes CITES protection for marine species and incorporates its decision in its own legal setup, including trade restrictions for relevant species.

Given this solid international framework, sharks caught by the EU fleet in compliance with both CITES and regional fisheries management organisations, rules are considered legitimate fish products. At EU level, since 2003, the so-called EU Shark Finning Regulation prohibits the removal of shark fins on board all vessels in the EU waters, as well as the retention on board, transhipment or landing of shark fins. In 2013, the regulation was amended to enforce the ‘fins naturally attached’ policy. So currently all sharks targeted by commercial fishing must be retained on board and must be landed with their fins naturally attached – and there are no derogations from this obligation. The fins can be removed only upon landing. This applies to EU fishing vessels wherever they operate, even beyond EU waters.

Honourable Members, this is a short outline of what we already doing, both within and outside the European Union, to protect sharks and to promote sustainable fishing. I have already had the privilege to meet twice with organisers of this citizens' initiative – once during the dedicated meeting with the Commission, and a second time in the European Parliament hearing, Both encounters and discussions were a welcome opportunity to better understand the objectives of the initiatives and to discuss possible further actions to reinforce the EU policy on the protection of sharks. Against this background, the Commission is currently preparing the reply to the European citizens' initiative ‘Stop finning, stop the trade’ which it will adopt by July 2023, in line with the provisions of the ECI Regulation.

Gabriel Mato, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, me alegro mucho de que en esta mañana tengamos una sesión casi monográfica sobre pesca en un momento tremendamente delicado. Anteayer mismo los pescadores de toda Europa mostraron un profundo y rotundo rechazo a la política que está llevando la Unión Europea. Señor comisario, reflexionen y rectifiquen.

Centrándome ahora en la iniciativa ciudadana, hay que reconocer que en la Unión Europea estamos dando un ejemplo en relación con la pesca de tiburones, con una legislación sólida que garantiza la explotación sostenible, lo que no es el caso de otros países.

Esto incluye la prohibición del cercenamiento de las aletas (finning) para los operadores de la Unión Europea donde quiera que operen en el mundo, política de aletas adheridas desde 2013 —las aletas deben estar unidas a los cuerpos—, seguimiento por satélite de sus actividades, diario electrónico a bordo, observadores a bordo, prohibición de capturar especies vulnerables, monitoreo científico desde la década de 1990 proporcionando datos para evaluaciones científicas.

El acuerdo en el marco de la CITES significa que el comercio de aletas de tiburón estará regulado y limitado, y que los tiburones ahora solo se podrán comercializar si no están en peligro de extinción. La realidad actual es que las aletas que llegan a nuestros puertos o que se comercializan desde puertos de la Unión Europea son las correspondientes a la flota de la Unión Europea, todas ellas desembarcadas en régimen de aletas adheridas, productos que, además, ahora deberán estar provistos y acompañados del correspondiente certificado CITES que acredite su origen y trazabilidad.

Una prohibición del comercio de aletas solo cerrará una pesca estrictamente regulada en la Unión Europea, lo que impulsará una mayor explotación en otras partes del mundo, donde la pesca de tiburones es mucho menos sostenible. La Unión Europea representa solo un pequeño porcentaje del comercio mundial de aletas de tiburón. Además, la prohibición no abordaría la principal amenaza para los tiburones, que es la sobrepesca no sostenible.

Y esta prohibición solo penalizará a los operadores sostenibles de la Unión Europea mientras que países como China o Corea, que han bloqueado sistemáticamente cualquier iniciativa de la Unión Europea para prohibir el finning en los organismos internacionales, continuarán con sus prácticas ilegales. ¿Es esto lo que queremos?

Predrag Fred Matić, u ime kluba S&D. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, zaštita morskih pasa i naših oceana tema je koja brine mnoge Europljane, a svake se godine ubije više od 100 milijuna morskih pasa, uglavnom radi njihovih peraja.

Peraje morskih pasa najčešće se uvoze i konzumiraju u Hong Kongu, Singapuru i Tajvanu. Čak do 45 % njih sada dolazi iz Europske unije, a taj trend je u porastu. I ne samo da peraje morskih pasa nemaju nikakvu nutritivnu vrijednost, nego su neukusne i štetne po zdravlje, a postoji rizik od velikih količina unosa žive, arsena i drugih otrovnih metala jer je morski pas na vrhu hranidbenog lanca.

Dakle, radi se isključivo o profitu onih koji nastavljaju provoditi ovu praksu.

Legalno tržište za peraje morskih pasa otvara prostor za tržište ilegalnih peraja, budući da je teško identificirati njihovo podrijetlo. Odvojene peraje morskog psa uglavnom se mogu identificirati samo dugotrajnim i skupim DNK testovima. Upravo zato je ta praksa rijetka, odnosno neizvediva.

Iako postoji mnogo nesporazuma o trgovini perajama i ribolovu morskih pasa, važnija činjenica je da Europska unija svojom pasivnošću i nedjelovanjem podržava i sudjeluje u trgovini koja je glavni uzrok globalnog smanjenja broja morskih pasa.

Obveze koje je Europska unija preuzela tijekom nedavne oceanske konferencije u Panami pokazale su da postoji želja za preuzimanjem vodeće uloge u zaštiti i oporavku oceana, no za sada je to samo mrtvo slovo na papiru. Glavno je pitanje kako će se sva ta obećanja pretvoriti u stvarna i konkretna djela.

Novom Uredbom o obnovi prirode tražili smo da se morska staništa u kojima obitavaju najugroženije vrste morskih pasa obnove. No, kod većine političkih grupa takva ideja nije naišla na plodno tlo. Uz to, nažalost, cijela Uredba o obnovi prirode ima vrlo slabe šanse uopće biti izglasana.

U Hrvatskoj je uvriježena poslovica ‘Grijeh je ubiti kravu radi jedne šnicle.’, a upravo se o tome radi kada pričamo o rezanju peraje. Milijun potpisnika ove inicijative nas snažno podsjećaju na taj problem. Što je još potrebno da bismo razumjeli kako budućnost ribarskog sektora, sigurnost opskrbe hrane i generacijska obnova ovise o sveobuhvatnoj zaštiti ugroženih vrsta i staništa? Danas su to morski psi, a tko zna o čemu ćemo raspravljati sutra.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, no estamos de acuerdo con los contenidos de esta iniciativa legislativa popular, porque la flota europea, como quedó acreditado en un informe científico previo a la revisión del Reglamento (UE) n.o 605/2013, no practica el cercenamiento de las aletas de los tiburones (finning). Nuestros barcos están obligados a desembarcar en puerto la pieza íntegra de las especies de tiburón cuya pesca está permitida. Desde noviembre, además, cualquier pieza que comercializa aquí la flota o que exporta debe incorporar un certificado CITES.

Este documento se emite al amparo de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres. Acredita que el pez del que procede la aleta está legalmente capturado y ha llegado completo a las lonjas de los puertos. En consecuencia, la iniciativa no aporta nada nuevo a la sostenibilidad de las prácticas de la flota europea. Por el contrario, incorpora una nueva restricción injustificada a nuestros profesionales que aumentará la presión sobre estas especies por parte de las flotas que, en otras zonas del mundo, sí practican el finning.

Así, China, Japón o Corea seguirán bloqueando las medidas antifinning en las organizaciones regionales de ordenación pesquera (OROP) en las que participan. Palangreros asiáticos seguirán haciendo trasbordos clandestinos de estos productos en alta mar.

La solución, en consecuencia, pasa por fortalecer la dimensión exterior de la política pesquera común, una de cuyas misiones es extender nuestros estándares de sostenibilidad económica, social y ambiental en todo el mundo. También nos gustaría saber qué problemas encuentra la Comisión en las OROP para que estos estándares que sí obligan a la flota europea no sean asumidos por los países mencionados que sí practican el finning.

En definitiva, planteando estas iniciativas cosméticas solo se perjudica a la flota más transparente y sostenible del mundo y a la propia especie que se pretende proteger.

Caroline Roose, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, le finning, cette pratique cruelle qui consiste à découper à vif les ailerons de requins, est interdite dans l'Union européenne depuis 2013. Pourtant, l'Union européenne reste l'un des principaux exportateurs d'ailerons de requins dans le monde. Nous continuons à tuer massivement des requins pour alimenter le commerce d'ailerons, au mépris des conséquences pour la biodiversité. Plus d'un million de citoyens européens ont signé l'initiative citoyenne européenne demandant l'interdiction du commerce d'ailerons de requins. Cette interdiction est nécessaire.

Le fait qu'il existe encore un commerce légal d'ailerons de requins facilite le blanchiment des ailerons illégaux, ceux issus du finning ou ceux d'espèces protégées. Interdire le commerce d'ailerons de requins rendrait plus facile la lutte contre le commerce illégal d'espèces protégées et permettrait de réduire le nombre de requins qui sont tués chaque année. Pour stopper l'hécatombe des éléphants, on a su interdire le commerce de l'ivoire. Pour sauver les requins, nous devons interdire le commerce de leurs ailerons. Donc merci, Monsieur le Commissaire, des millions de citoyens comptent sur vous.

Dorien Rookmaker, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, Europe needs more direct democracy. Europa heeft meer directe democratie nodig. Europa braucht mehr direkte Demokratie. Of, l'Europe a besoin de démocratie plus directe.

De democratie vormt het hart van Europa. Het is de beste van alle regeringsvormen. Zij vormt de basis van een vreedzame samenleving. De democratie staat wereldwijd onder druk. Ook hier in Europa. De belangrijkste bedreiging komt niet van rechts en ook niet van links. De belangrijkste bedreiging van de democratie komt van de gevestigde belangen. Want als je de macht hebt, is het moeilijk om de macht te delen. Politieke partijen vormen een instrument van de macht, soms verbindend tussen kiezers en beleidsmakers, maar vaker een ongewenst obstakel voor burgers die zeggenschap eisen.

Dankzij het burgerinitiatief kunnen burgers met één miljoen handtekeningen de Europese Commissie direct aan het werk zetten met een wens die in de samenleving leeft. En dat hebben ze gedaan. Meer dan één miljoen burgers maken zich zorgen over de wijze waarop er wordt gevist op haaien, ter wille van haaienvinnensoep. Ze willen deze visvangst stoppen. Politieke partijen hadden hier kleur moeten bekennen en een resolutie moeten opstellen, zodat kiezers en de Commissie weten wat het standpunt is van het Parlement.

We moeten veel beter luisteren naar wat er leeft in de samenleving en daarnaar handelen. Voor een democratisch Europa en een vreedzame toekomst.

Annika Bruna, au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, le finning, comme il a été évoqué avant moi, consiste à découper l'aileron du requin vivant avant de rejeter son corps à la mer. C'est une pratique barbare qui ne relève pas de nos mœurs et coutumes. C'est pourquoi, en Europe, elle est interdite depuis 2013. Pourtant, l'Union européenne figure encore parmi les plus grands exportateurs d'ailerons de requins. La Commission européenne se montre une nouvelle fois très permissive vis-à-vis des vraies dérives de la pêche industrielle. Elle est parfois bien trop occupée à infliger des normes intenables à nos petits pêcheurs. Ce sont pourtant eux qui assurent notre souveraineté alimentaire et non les navires industriels qui exportent des ailerons vers l'Asie.

Il est donc temps que la Commission agisse contre cette pêche cruelle, illégale et nuisible pour l'écosystème. Accepter cette pratique, c'est se rendre complice de cette cruauté. Merci, Monsieur le Commissaire, des décisions que vous voudrez bien prendre pour interdire cette pêche cruelle et intenable.

Anja Hazekamp, namens de The Left-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, haaien hebben een onmisbare functie in het onderwaterecosysteem. En toch worden jaarlijks wereldwijd meer dan 100 miljoen haaien gedood, met name voor hun vinnen. En de haaienvissers – ook in Europa – maken zich daarbij geregeld schuldig aan het ontvinnen van levende haaien, een illegale praktijk waarbij de vinnen van de nog levende haaien worden afgesneden, waarna de dieren hulpeloos terug in zee worden gegooid. Deze gruwelijke haaienjacht heeft ertoe geleid dat 167 haaiensoorten met uitsterven worden bedreigd.

1,1 miljoen burgers hebben een burgerinitiatief ondertekend om de handel in haaienvinnen te stoppen en daarmee ook de gruwelijke jacht te beëindigen. Maar onder druk van de Zuid-Europese visserijlobby weigert dit Parlement om actie te ondernemen. Ik roep de Eurocommissaris op om deze burgers en de haaien niet in de steek te laten en op te staan voor de bescherming van haaien wereldwijd.

En voorts ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouw- en visserijsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.

Martin Buschmann (NI). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Weltweit werden jedes Jahr schätzungsweise 100 Millionen Haie gefangen und getötet. Der Handel mit den Haifischflossen boomt, obwohl von ihrem Verzehr wegen des hohen Quecksilbergehalts eigentlich abzuraten wäre. Gerade die EU hat mehr und mehr Anteil an diesem todbringenden Handel. Die massive Überfischung in den letzten Jahrzehnten hat zu einem katastrophalen Rückgang der Bestände um 71 % geführt. Die Biodiversität nimmt ab, und das Funktionieren der marinen Ökosysteme ist in großer Gefahr.

Will die EU ihren internationalen Verpflichtungen nachkommen, bleibt kein anderer Weg, als den Handel mit Haifischflossen komplett zu verbieten. Über 1,1 Millionen EU-Bürger stehen hinter diesem Anliegen. Für diese 1,1 Millionen Bürger spreche ich heute: Stop Finning – Stop the Trade!

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, tato evropská občanská iniciativa si dala za cíl právně zakázat obchod se žraločími ploutvemi v Evropě. Odstraňování ploutví ohrožuje úsilí o zachování žraloků. Občané proto požadují změnit nařízení EU, aby se vztahovalo i na obchod s ploutvemi, a žádají Komisi, aby vypracovala nové nařízení, které v tomto smyslu rozšíří působnost tohoto již zmíněného nařízení. Odhaduje se, že kolem 270 milionů žraloků je stále na celém světě každý rok uloveno a zabito téměř výhradně kvůli ploutvím. Je to obrovské číslo. Přesná čísla ale také zůstávají neznámá, možná, že jsou dokonce ještě vyšší. Hlavním konzumentem těchto ploutví zůstávají státy Asie. Ovšem i evropské země patří k největším národům, které loví žraloky a také s nimi obchodují. Myslím si, že musíme udělat více. Inspekce na moři i kolem moří Evropy jsou poměrně vzácné. Měly by být rozhodně četnější i koordinovanější s členskými státy. Je nepochybné, že máme odpovědnost za biodiverzitu a měli bychom stanovit pravidla, která tento nezákonný způsob obchodu s ploutvemi vyloučí. Pro absolutní zákaz obchodu se žraloky nebo jejich produkty já ovšem nejsem.

Clara Aguilera (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, en primer lugar, quiero felicitar a los que han llevado a cabo esta iniciativa. Cualquier iniciativa significa participación ciudadana y eso es bueno para la democracia europea. Ahora bien, creo que está errada en el tiro. Estamos en una sociedad, en Europa, donde tenemos una normativa que prohíbe el cercenamiento de las aletas de los tiburones. Por lo tanto, yo creo que la Unión Europea está avanzada en este aspecto.

Y yo quiero desmentir algunas cosas, porque aquí un diputado o una diputada viene y dice —y se queda tan fresco— que la práctica del cercenamiento de las aletas se está produciendo en la Unión Europea. En la Unión Europea está prohibida. Si se hace, se hace ilegalmente, pero está prohibida. O se dice que el tiburón es una especie que no se consume en la Unión Europea. Falso. En mi país se ha comido de siempre el tiburón y se capturan las piezas enteras. Por tanto, no se puede prohibir el comercio de la aleta cuando se captura una especie entera.

¿Qué podríamos hacer para impedir esa práctica del cercenamiento? Pues ahí puede hacer la Comisión algo con lo que estoy de acuerdo: ¿por qué no defiende en las OROP que todos los demás países la prohíban? Es un buen mecanismo. Y otro mecanismo: llevemos a cabo una trazabilidad adecuada de los productos y acabaremos con esta situación. Trabajemos en ello y en las OROP. La flota europea hace bien las cosas.

Ska Keller (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, every year, thousands of tonnes of fin sharks are being exported from or through the EU because, yes, the sharks are being caught as a whole, they are being landed and then their fins are being cut off. The rest of the shark body is being sold off for stuff that not necessarily everyone wants to eat. And the fins are the stuff that makes the profit from being exported to Asia. And also many shark fins are going through the European Union. So we clearly have a problem that is not yet addressed by the existing and very good legislation. We need to act and we need to act soon.

Clearly, selling shark fins is not about stopping anyone from starving. Shark fins are a luxury good and they cause the shark numbers to decline. Already now, 40% of all shark species are threatened. So we need to cut the incentive here. And in the committee hearing with the representatives of the citizens, an overwhelming majority of colleagues across the board was supporting this initiative. Unfortunately, it seems that some colleagues didn't take the time back then to talk with the citizens that were there. So I urge the Commission, the Commissioner, to come forward with a proposal that honours the more than 1 million citizens' requests from all Member States.

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, como todos sabemos, desde el año 2013 la flota de la Unión aplica ya una estricta política de aletas adheridas. Sin embargo, la medida no se aplica a otras flotas que capturan tiburones a nivel internacional. Ya se ha dicho: países como China, Corea y Japón bloquean sistemáticamente la aplicación de una política de aletas adheridas en las distintas OROP.

Por otra parte, en noviembre del año pasado, hace pocos meses, las Partes de la CITES decidieron en Panamá incluir en su restrictivo Apéndice II la práctica totalidad de especies de tiburones, incluida la tintorera. Esto supone que, a nivel internacional, los tiburones y las partes de su cuerpo solamente se pueden ya comercializar de manera sostenible si cuentan con el correspondiente certificado CITES.

Seré claro. El problema no es la Unión Europea. Nuestra flota y nuestras autoridades CITES cumplen con las normas que garantizan un comercio sostenible de tiburones. El problema son las flotas y las autoridades comerciales de terceros países con estándares de sostenibilidad inferiores. Si queremos solucionar de forma efectiva el problema que hoy nos ocupa, deberíamos concentrar nuestros esfuerzos en las actividades de terceros países.

Insto a la Comisión Europea —como han hecho otros diputados que me han precedido en el uso de la palabra— a redoblar la presión diplomática en las OROP correspondientes para alcanzar ese level playing field internacional en materia de transparencia en las capturas y en la política de aletas adheridas.

La prohibición del comercio de aletas de tiburón repercutiría negativamente en la flota europea y solo agravaría la falta de condiciones equitativas de competencia sin solucionar el problema de fondo.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’)

Anja Hazekamp (The Left), ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag. – Meneer Millán Mon, u zegt dat het vooral in het buitenland gebeurt, dat die vinnen uit Azië komen, omdat het in Europa al zo lang verboden is.

Nu weten we dat met name de Spaanse vloot, Spaanse vissersschepen toch met enige regelmaat betrapt worden voor het proberen om vinnen aan te landen zonder dat de haaien daaraan vastzitten. Zo werden bijvoorbeeld in december nog twee schepen aangehouden omdat ze in totaal 13 ton aan losgesneden haaienvinnen wilden aanlanden.

Wat doet u in uw eigen land om deze praktijk echt ook hard aan te pakken? Want alleen maar wijzen naar landen buiten Europa is niet genoeg.

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE), respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’ . – Señora Hazekamp, yo no conozco esos casos a los que usted se refiere. Pero, insisto, la flota europea está bien regulada. Está prohibido no respetar la política de aletas adheridas. Y si existen casos como a los que usted se refiere, supongo que todo el peso de la ley caerá sobre los infractores.

Por tanto, eso no es un problema. Siempre hay casos individuales que pueden incumplir la ley. Pero eso no significa que haya que cambiar de política. Lo que hay que hacer es aplicar bien la ley a los infractores.

Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Hr. formand! I dag diskuterer vi et forbud mod handel med hajfinner. Det gør vi på baggrund af et borgerforslag, hvor over 1,1 millioner mennesker har skrevet under. ‘Finning’, som det kaldes, er en brutal praksis, hvor hajer fanges, og man skærer deres finner af, og derefter dumper man dem på bunden af havet, fordi man har kun brug for – man vil kun have – man er kun interesseret i deres finner, som kan sælges for en dyr pris. Det er dyreplageri i yderste potens. Det hører ingen steder hjemme. Heldigvis er ‘finning’ forbudt i EU, men der sælges mange finner, også på det europæiske marked. Det bør vi sætte en stopper for, og det er derfor, jeg støtter, at vi laver et forbud mod handel med disse finner. Jeg er en af de borgere, der har skrevet under på borgerforslaget. Der er nogle kollegaer, der siger, at det ikke vil nytte at stoppe handelen. De tager fejl. Selvfølgelig vil det nytte. EU er et stort marked for disse finner, og derfor bør vi stoppe handelen. Ved at gøre det, kan vi også sætte en stopper for, at denne forfærdelige praksis finder sted.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, el cercenamiento de las aletas de los tiburones (finning) es una práctica rechazable, condenable, detestable y antiecológica, como dice la iniciativa ciudadana europea. La normativa europea prohíbe el cercenamiento de las aletas desde el año 2013, como usted sabe, señor comisario. Cuando se aprobó la medida hubo un compromiso expreso de la Comisión Europea para adoptar la prohibición del cercenamiento de las aletas, sin que se llegase a alcanzar el acuerdo por oposición de China, de Corea y de Japón.

¿Sabe usted, señor comisario, que la flota gallega no practica el finning? Me gustaría aclarar que proyectar sobre la flota y la cadena de valor gallega la sospecha de finning es falso e injusto y carente de argumentos. No existe un mercado de la tintorera o de ninguna otra especie pesquera. Ese oscuro mercado de venta del que se habla, de aletas de Asia desde Vigo, no existe. La flota gallega pesca toda la pieza entera por toda la carne y nunca por la aleta. En nuestra pesquería y nuestra industria la aleta es simplemente un subproducto del procesado de este pez, no un fin en sí mismo.

La flota de palangre de superficie gallega y la industria transformadora relacionada llevan años realizando esfuerzos de sostenibilidad. Esfuerzos como el compromiso denominado la implementación del proyecto FIP BLUES (Fishing Improvement Project), iniciativa que supervisa y evalúa la organización FisheryProgress, de transparencia de una pesquería que actúa conjuntamente en aras de la sostenibilidad pesquera a lo largo de toda la cadena de valor.

Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la prima volta che ho sentito parlare di finning, in italiano ‘spinnamento’, era nel lontano 2009 e già allora si parlava di bandire questa pratica orrenda. Siamo nel 2023 e, se è lodevole che dei cittadini si stiano battendo per abolirla, è triste che questo non sia avvenuto prima, già anni fa.

Il finning sta portando a rischio di estinzione molte specie di squali e ciò compromette gravemente l'intero ecosistema marino. È una pratica barbara, violenta e inaccettabile che serve ad alimentare un mercato illegale, che vede la Cina protagonista per l'assurda e antiscientifica credenza che la zuppa di pinne abbia proprietà curative. Ancora nel 2023 discutiamo di questo.

Abbiamo come Europa l'obbligo di vietare questa pratica e combattere nelle sedi internazionali affinché sia vietata ovunque, per fermare questo massacro e non rischiare, come spesso accade, di fissare regole rigide per noi ma consentire che altri non le rispettino, senza pagare alcuna conseguenza.

Stop finning now!

Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ogni anno la pratica del finning costa la vita a oltre cento milioni di squali. Ogni anno un numero sempre più alto di specie rischia l'estinzione. Ogni anno questa pratica crudele priva i nostri oceani di un predatore importante per la salute degli ecosistemi marini.

Nonostante gli impegni sanciti dal Green Deal per la protezione dell'ambiente marino, l'Unione europea è ancora oggi responsabile del 45 % delle importazioni di pinne di squalo da parte dei principali mercati asiatici.

Per quanto ancora consentiremo che l'Unione europea sia complice di una pratica crudele e insostenibile? Per quanto ancora tradiremo gli obiettivi del Green Deal?

Chiediamo alla Commissione di ascoltare la voce di oltre un milione di cittadini e di presentare una proposta che metta fine, una volta per tutte, al commercio di pinne di squalo.

Pär Holmgren (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Tack, och framför allt ett jättestort tack till de drygt 1,1 miljoner medborgare i EU som har krävt detta – ifrån alla medlemsländerna. Detta är verkligen en enormt viktig och akut fråga, och EU:s roll i denna bokstavliga soppa är väldigt central. Det närmar sig 50 procent inblandning av all handel med hajfenor i världen. Det handlar om tusentals ton varje år som passerar genom EU på ett eller annat sätt.

Detta handlar ju såklart i första hand om hajarna själva, men det handlar också väldigt mycket om ekosystemen i våra världshav. De måste vara i balans, och extra viktigt för att ekosystemen ska vara i balans är just rovdjuren på toppen av näringskedjorna. Detta inte minst för klimatfrågan. Vi vet vilken viktig kolsänka haven är, men för att de ska vara en fungerande kolsänka måste vi ha fungerande ekosystem, och där ingår hajarna. Detta blir ännu viktigare nu när haven blir varmare. För mig som medlem i gruppen De gröna känns det faktiskt konstigt att vi ens ska behöva diskutera dessa frågor 2023 — vi krävde totalstopp redan 2012.

Διαδικασία ‘catch the eye’

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, kiitokset komissaari Sinkevičiusille siitä, että olette rakentamassa eurooppalaisten kansalaisten luottamusta komission ja Euroopan unionin instituutioihin.

Olemme 20 vuotta väitelleet siitä, että eväiden irrottaminen haista olisi saatava loppumaan. Tämä on täysin rinnasteinen niiden käytäntöjen kanssa, joissa sarvikuonojen sarvia tai norsunluuta erillisenään käytetään markkinoihin. Salapyyntiä, salakauppaa ja tässä tapauksessa sananmukaista viher- tai puhtaaksipesua tuotteilla, jotka ovat salapyydettyjä lailliseen joukkoon, ei voida saada kuriin millään muulla kuin hainevän kaupan kieltämisellä.

Kyseessä ei ole kenellekään tarpeellinen hyödyke. Kyse on siitä, teemmekö, mikä on oikein, vai kuuntelemmeko hetkellisiä taloudellisia intressejä ja lobbareita.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I too want to add my congratulations to the organisers of this initiative. It is no small task and some considerable achievement to pull off one of these, and it really reflects the importance of the issue, on the one hand, but also how much the EU is involved, being one of the largest shark fin exporters in the world.

We know that since the 1980s the legal shark meat trade has killed around 100 million of these creatures every year; if you count the illegal and undocumented, we could be talking about 273 million. Now those figures are utterly staggering against the backdrop of 60% of shark species being threatened with extinction, which could affect, obviously, the health of our oceans. So I think this is about time that we do something a bit more decisive.

We know that in 2013 you banned the separation of shark fins and the disposal at sea, but it would be foolish to think that the regulations don't have loopholes. We know that Spanish vessels only observe on board about 1-3% of the time. Examples have been given in one month alone of two violations of that. So the only way to deal with it is to stop the trade, better regulate incidental fishing and strengthen the control proceedings so that we can truly protect diversity and human health.

(Λήξη της διαδικασίας ‘catch the eye’)

Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, first of all I would like to thank you for today's debate and for your comments and views on such important topic as the protection of sharks. And the views expressed by citizens are crucial when we design and improve our policies. And the European Citizens' Initiative is an excellent tool to channel and make these views here. And it's our institutional and legal obligation to take them seriously into account.

We are now analysing the initiative very carefully, considering all environmental, economic and social aspects of possible further action. We are looking in detail at trade, customs and control aspects of shark fishing, which we will all take into consideration when preparing the reply to this ECI.

Now when it comes to some of the remarks by some Members of Parliament, it's true that EU legislation is very advanced. And it's true that Asian countries are the main market for shark fins and have driven catch and trade of shark upwards. But the EU is a major player. Our share is 15% of catch worldwide. And the reality is that there is a global problem with sharks and we should take our responsibilities. The EU position should be geared more and more at continuing to be part of the solution rather than becoming part of the problem or staying silent as an observer. So, dear honourable Members, your comments questions today have brought to the discussion also important elements and perspectives. And as I said earlier, the Commission will take a decision on the follow-up to this initiative by July 2023, and I look forward to continuing our close cooperation on this very important topic, especially when we have a strong signal from European citizens.

Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señor presidente, he hecho una sola pregunta al comisario que no ha respondido y me gustaría que diera una respuesta, porque aquí se han hecho muchas afirmaciones que no son ciertas.

Creo que la Unión Europea, con su actuación y legislación, forma parte de la solución, no parte del problema, como acaba de decir el comisario.

Y mi pregunta, en mi intervención, ha sido: ¿qué está haciendo la Unión Europea en las OROP para obligar a países como China, Corea o Japón, que sí practican el cercenamiento de las aletas de los tiburones (finning), a que no lo hagan? Esa es la manera de extender nuestros estándares.

Esa es la pregunta. Por favor, me gustaría una respuesta por parte del comisario, más allá de entender la iniciativa popular.

Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε. Αυτό που κάνατε δεν προβλέπεται από τους κανόνες μας. Τοποθετούνται εκπρόσωποι όλων των πολιτικών κομμάτων, θέτουν ερωτήματα, παρουσιάζουν τις απόψεις τους. Απαντά η Επιτροπή, και όλα κρίνονται και από εμάς και από τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες που μας παρακολουθούν. Κακώς ζητήσατε τον λόγο. Το Προεδρείο με μια αίσθηση ανοχής σας έδωσε τον λόγο, αλλά αν καθιερώσουμε αυτή την πρακτική, θα κάνουμε μια αέναη συζήτηση που δεν θα τελειώνει ποτέ.

4.   Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries – Agreement of the IGC on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (High Seas Treaty) (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η κοινή συζήτηση επί:

—	της δήλωσης της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την προστασία και αποκατάσταση των θαλάσσιων οικοσυστημάτων για μια βιώσιμη και ανθεκτική αλιεία (2023/2662(RSP)), και

—	της δήλωσης της Επιτροπής σχετικά με τη Συμφωνία της Διακυβερνητικής Διάσκεψης (IGC) για τη θαλάσσια βιοποικιλότητα σε περιοχές εκτός εθνικής δικαιοδοσίας (Συνθήκη Ανοικτής Θάλασσας) (2023/2663(RSP)).

Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, we share a huge responsibility for our oceans and for those who earn their living from what the oceans offer us. And we need to face our responsibilities collectively. We need to continue taking measures that reduce ocean pollution and mitigate the impact of climate change on marine life. We need to implement fully our comprehensive environmental legislation and continue to drive global ambition for protecting our ocean. And we need to make sure that our fisheries communities are valued for the tremendous work they are doing day by day, that they have the possibility to pass on their noble profession to their sons and daughters, that they are supported in the transition towards the less fuel-intensive and less impactful fisheries, and that they are actually driving this transition with innovative solutions and their experience and affection for the seas.

We need to face these responsibilities collectively because fishers and sustainable fishing are at the core of food security, as is the state of the ocean and the life it harbours. Meeting these challenges is not going to be easy. There will have to be important changes which naturally brings uncertainty and fears. And these changes require a collective effort of various industries and various actors. It is our task as the executive and legislative bodies of the Union to meet the challenges of ensuring sustainability of the environment of marine food production and society. It is our task to ensure that changes are brought in gradually without incurring excessive hardship and that they are brought in fairly with full transparency and wide consultation.

Effecting real change to bring greater protection to the marine environment and moving away from fossil fuels as the main energy source require huge endeavours: endeavours by the fishing industry, like by all other sectors in Europe. To make sure that also next generations of fishermen and women will be also able to fish, we need to continue our efforts to lower the impact of fishing on the marine environment in order to stop losing biodiversity, marine habitats and parts of ecosystems. Biodiversity loss and the extinction of species are not events that are happening far away from our waters or in the far future. No: they are happening in our waters and right now.

The Commission's communication on the marine action plan is just one part of the Fisheries and Oceans Package which the Commission has adopted earlier this year to address the main challenges of Europe's fishers today. The dependency on fossil fuels, the continuous degradation of marine ecosystems, the need to ensure a level playing field within the fisheries sector – within the EU and with non-EU countries – and last but not least, the generational renewal. The marine action plan is aimed at better implementing our commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, our biodiversity strategy for 2030 and the EU nature and marine strategy framework directives. Its goal is to protect and rebuild ecosystems for resilient fisheries in the very interests of our fishermen and women whose well-being depends on healthy seas. It is our aim to ensure that the marine ecosystems can continue to provide services and goods to our fishers, to coastal communities, and to humanity at large. And all this should be done via the regional approach under the common fisheries policy and under shared competence under environmental legislation, Member States are invited to consult stakeholders and initiate measures at national and regional level to reduce impacts on ecosystems, making sure that our marine protected areas are effectively protected from the impact of damaging fishing gears, and complement this with measures to avoid or reduce bycatch of sensitive species and avoid catching undersized fish. The measures we propose allow for marine protected areas with effective rules for conservation, adapt fishing practices and gears, which let the most sensitive species escape and restrict damage to the seabed in the most vulnerable areas.

This should result in improved condition and resilience of marine ecosystems and of fisheries which rely on them, as well as in lower carbon emissions. When biodiversity begins to recover fisheries also benefit from it. The transition does not come for free, but support from EU funds is available. Funding for research, development and adaptation of vessels, allowing them to fish with lower impacts on marine ecosystems. Let me be clear: there is no new legislative initiative planned at this time. Our marine action plan is a political call towards Member States to raise their ambitions. The Commission expects Member States to respect their political commitments on environmental protection and to implement their legislation under the existing environmental legislation.

The marine action plan does not introduce a blanket ban on bottom trawling in EU waters. It calls on Member States to engage in dialogue to protect the marine environment while ensuring prosperity and future of our fisheries and fishing communities. I trust that we can find a consensus around the objectives of this marine action plan and around approach, ensuring a constructive dialogue between Member States and relevant stakeholders.

Honourable Members, from what we do to protect our marine biodiversity within EU waters let me now turn to the international dimension, where our objectives and actions are well aligned with those that we are pursuing within the EU. The last few months have seen two historic diplomatic achievements which allow us to better protect our oceans. The agreement on the Global Biodiversity Framework in Montreal last December and the political agreement on the United Nations Treaty of the High Seas or as we also call it, the Treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction.

The Treaty on the High Seas has been hailed by the UN Secretary-General as a success for multilateralism and a success for the ocean. And I cannot agree more. Now it needs swift ratification and implementation. The BBNJ agreement will help better protect our high seas, which is essential for ocean health, for meeting our climate goals and the objective agreed at COP15 in Montreal to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030.

The agreement also improves the regulation of human activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction through the establishment of a clear process for environmental impact assessments. And this will ensure transparency, participation and accountability. It also contributes to foster global equity by ensuring that the benefits of marine genetic research are shared freely and fairly across the planet, benefiting all researchers. Monetary benefits from this research will flow back in part towards the BBNJ to protect the oceans.

Finally, the treaty foresees capacity-building to support developing countries in their implementation of the treaty, and creates institutions which will be tasked with protecting the high seas – a secretariat, a conference of the parties, a science body, to name just a few.

We should be proud of the role the EU played in reaching this agreement, as we initiated and led the high-ambition coalition on BBNJ, which now counts 52 members. But as you know, the success of a treaty in reaching its objectives lies above all in its implementation. So the treaty now needs to be formally adopted, which is planned for June this year, and ratified by 60 parties before it enters into force. And the EU now needs to put all efforts toward the ambitious implementation of the BBNJ agreement. And I hope I can count on the support of this House.

Gabriel Mato, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, su plan de acción para proteger los ecosistemas marinos es, de hecho, un plan para destruir la pesca sostenible. Si su objetivo en el plan de acción era cerrar la brecha entre el medio ambiente y la PPC lo único cierto es que acaba de demoler el puente entre la Comisión y los pescadores. El grito de los pescadores contra su política es unánime. Ustedes lo oyen, pero no quieren escucharlo.

En su plan de acción proponen eliminar gradualmente la pesca de arrastre de fondo en todas las áreas marítimas protegidas para 2030. Es decir, prohibir la pesca de arrastre de fondo en un tercio de los mares de la Unión Europea. Y lo hacen sin ninguna base científica, sin ninguna evaluación de impacto y sin ninguna alternativa a los pescadores y familias dependientes de esta arte ancestral, una de las artes de pesca más comunes y reguladas de Europa.

Pero no es nuevo. Ya en su propuesta sobre la Estrategia sobre Biodiversidad señaló con el dedo a la pesca como la principal responsable del deterioro del medio ambiente marino. Pero, ¿por qué tanta obsesión con los pescadores? ¿Por qué no menciona otras industrias marítimas como el petróleo, el gas, el dragado, el transporte marítimo, que pueden ser mucho más dañinas?

Señor comisario, el sector se siente discriminado y traicionado. Y, además, tiene razón. No es justo que la Comisión considere la pesca como la fuente de todos los males. No es justo que ignore a los pescadores. La prohibición en todas las áreas marítimas protegidas es discriminatoria, desproporcionada, injustificada y no está basada en la ciencia.

Tampoco les han preocupado los efectos socioeconómicos para la flota de la Unión Europea. No han hecho una evaluación de impacto completa. ¿Por qué? ¿Para qué? ¿No?

Y, por si este plan no fuera suficiente para acabar con el sector, nos presentan la propuesta sobre restauración de la naturaleza, que viene a dar la puntilla a un maltrecho sector.

Centrarse únicamente en la protección e ignorar las consideraciones socioeconómicas y los objetivos de seguridad alimentaria es contrario a la PPC, al Tratado y al sentido común. La protección del medio ambiente es importante, pero la protección de los pescadores también lo es. Hay ecosistemas vulnerables, pero los pescadores y sus familias también son vulnerables.

Señor comisario, no olvide que es usted el Comisario de Pesca, aunque tantas veces no lo parezca.

Isabel Carvalhais, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, eu começo por agradecer o seu esforço em tentar esclarecer aqui alguns pontos sensíveis. Eu acredito que precisamos, de facto e de forma urgente, de metas de restauração e conservação que sejam ambiciosas.

Mas, Senhor Comissário, também é preciso que essas metas sejam realistas e o realismo, do meu ponto de vista, só pode vir de duas vias: da ciência e dos estudos de impacto que contemplem também a dimensão social e económica.

A ciência revela-nos a urgência e aponta caminhos. E os estudos de impacto têm de servir para criar estratégias concretas na resposta aos impactos que decorrem da transição para uma pesca menos destrutiva. É neste equilíbrio que está a sustentabilidade dos oceanos e que está a garantia do modo de vida dos nossos pescadores.

Desengane-se quem acha que não precisamos de proteger os ecossistemas marinhos. Temos de lutar por uma pesca responsável e sustentável. Mas desengane-se também quem pensa que essa luta terá sucesso sem a devida solidariedade concreta para com as nossas comunidades piscatórias. São elas, essencialmente, que têm os olhos sobre nós neste momento.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, en el Día de Europa muchas sirenas sonaron en centenares de puertos de la Unión. Denunciaban que los planes de la Comisión para supuestamente proteger y restaurar los ecosistemas marinos en pro de una pesca sostenible y resiliente, con la prohibición progresiva del arrastre para 2030, carecen de estudios de impacto, están generando más presión y conflictos en las zonas no afectadas por las restricciones y amenazan a un sector con el que nada se ha consultado. Un sector estratégico para la resiliencia de la Unión que, en el lenguaje de la mar, reitera al comisario que merece, necesita y quiere ser escuchado. Porque está comprometido con esos objetivos y lo ha demostrado aportando esfuerzos extraordinarios, conocimiento y sacrificio para lograrlos.

La experiencia demuestra que, solo conectando estos objetivos con la realidad, solo planteando un proceso con el sector que sea sostenible económica, social y ambientalmente, seguiremos progresando en sostenibilidad y resiliencia. Estos principios, antes que a nadie, interesan al propio sector. Unos profesionales que investigan, innovan, ahora por ejemplo en artes de arrastre, adelantándose a las denuncias que reciben de sus detractores y a las iniciativas institucionales.

Iniciativa, voluntad, trabajo, visión, como la firma el pasado tres de mayo de la alianza mundial de capitales del atún por la sostenibilidad, una alianza global impulsada desde un pequeño pueblo pesquero, Bermeo, mi pueblo natal, que compromete a nuestra industria y a la de Manta, Port Victoria en Seychelles, Pago Pago en Samoa Americana, Concarneau en Francia, Majuro en las Islas Marshall y General Santos en Filipinas.

Desde los cuatro puntos cardinales de la Unión le aportarán ejemplos de este tipo. Aparejos, digitalización, tecnología, alianzas, conocimiento del medio, disposición para trabajar juntos desde la realidad y sin prejuicios.

Por favor, comisario, no pierda esta oportunidad. Escúcheles.

Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, the oceans are important for their biodiversity, for providing the oxygen that we breathe, for the food that we eat, for their role as a carbon sink – on which we depend – and for the mysteries that the deep sea still holds for us. That's more than enough reason to protect them, because without healthy oceans, we humans cannot exist, and I'm afraid we very often forget that.

The oceans are not just a resource to be plundered, a resource that will be endlessly there for us. That is unfortunately not the case. The oceans are at their limits and if not beyond their limits already. And before we point fingers at other countries far away or whatnot, we need to do our homework here inside the European Union, in the high seas and also in the more coastal waters. Because all of the problems – overfishing, waste dumping, fertilisers and pesticides flowing into the ocean – all of that happens also here in Europe as well as elsewhere. This needs to change.

Protecting the seas starts at home, not with empty promises, but with real action, with more and truly protected areas, better control of fisheries and an end to plastic waste and the reform of agriculture. We know what to do, but we need to do it, and if we don't have the political will to do it, we will all suffer the consequences.

PRESIDÊNCIA: PEDRO SILVA PEREIRA

Vice-Presidente

Ladislav Ilčić, u ime kluba ECR. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kolege, zajednička ribarstvena politika podrazumijeva ravnotežu između tri glavna cilja: gospodarskog interesa, koji uključuje opskrbu potrošača kvalitetnom hranom, zatim socijalnog položaja ribara i zaštite okoliša. Ovaj akcijski plan ne poštuje tu ravnotežu već se fokusira isključivo na zaštitu okoliša.

Najava ukidanja pridnenog ribolova i proširenje zaštićenih područja, čak i tamo gdje to ne daje rezultate, zabrinjava ribare i priobalne zajednice koje žive od ribarstva, a o čijim interesima mi u ovome Domu moramo brinuti. Nas su birali ljudi, a ne ribe.

Ovaj akcijski plan nema zakonsku težinu, ali je jasno da će Komisija iskoristiti svoju moć da ga nametne državama članicama. Osim toga, problem je i to što ribari nisu bili uključeni u izradu ovog akcijskog plana, a stalno im se uvode neke nove mjere čiju učinkovitost nitko kasnije ne provjerava.

Osim ribara Komisija sve više zaobilazi i Europski parlament. Prošli je mjesec predsjednica Europskog parlamenta Roberta Metsola na moju inicijativu i uz podršku velike većine klubova iz Odbora za ribarstvo poslala dopis predsjednici Komisije Ursuli von der Leyen kojim poziva Komisiju da ne mimoilazi Parlament u donošenju odluka o ribarstvu.

Naime, na nekoliko konkretnih primjera pokazali smo da je Komisija, kad joj se nije sviđalo mišljenje Parlamenta, odluke donosila preko regionalnih organizacija, a Parlament se svelo na transpoziciju tih odluka u europsko pravo s pet godina zakašnjenja.

To znači da mi koji smo izravno birani od građana ne možemo utjecati na mjere koje značajno utječu na njihove živote i to je apsolutno nedopustivo. Komisija treba više poštivati ribarski sektor, mora na vrijeme uključiti Parlament u donošenje odluka i u okolnostima kad Unija iz trećih zemalja uvozi 70 % ukupne potrošnje morskih plodova treba gospodarski aspekt smatrati barem jednako važnim kao zaštitu okoliša.

Rosanna Conte, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, sarò diretta: questo piano d'azione non ci piace.

E glielo dico mostrando un pezzo di rete che i nostri pescatori usano per lo strascico in Italia: vede la grandezza delle maglie? Sa che l'impatto sui fondali del nostro strascico non è come quello extra-UE? Ha sentito le sirene dei pescatori che hanno manifestato in Europa l'altro giorno?

Questo piano d'azione è un boomerang che dimostra ancora una volta che le politiche dell'Unione europea sono inadeguate e distanti dalla realtà, dalla vita di mare e di banchina che vivono i nostri pescatori.

In nome di un ambientalismo ideologico volete vietare la pesca a strascico praticata da ben 2 088 imbarcazioni italiane, che riforniscono l'80 % del pesce venduto nei nostri mercati ittici e pescherie.

Ci chiedete di rinunciare al 20 % della flotta italiana e a intere filiere ittiche per far spazio al pesce importato da paesi terzi che nemmeno rispettano le nostre stesse regole e standard o, peggio, per rifilarci pesce prodotto in laboratorio.

È questo quello che veramente volete per il futuro alimentare dell'Unione europea?

Ieri l'abbiamo detto forte e chiaro con un flash-mob: siamo dalla parte dei pescatori e anche di tutti quei cittadini che vogliono continuare a consumare pesce italiano ed europeo, che è sinonimo di qualità e sicurezza.

Ci dia delle risposte sul futuro dello strascico e della tassazione di carburante ma non ci rifili la solita favoletta che il piano d'azione non è vincolante, perché sappiamo bene che sarà la matrice delle future proposte di regolamento che, sì, saranno vincolanti.

Noi difenderemo la nostra economia del mare da questa minaccia. Voi ricordate di guardare in faccia i pescatori e le loro famiglie prima di condannarli a queste proposte scellerate.

Anja Hazekamp, on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, an unidentified monster was the reason that Jules Verne's hero Aronnax undertook his journey, twenty thousand leagues under the sea. In his adventure, he discovered beautiful coral reefs and amazing wildlife.

If we were to follow Aronnax today, we would not find Captain Nemo and luscious sea life. We would find plastics, forever chemicals, heavy metals, dying coral reefs and further and further diminishing shoals of fish. And just as in Verne's masterpiece, the threat is man-made. We've managed to put our oceans at grave peril all by ourselves. The monster is us.

I am glad that the High Seas Treaty has been signed, but a piece of paper is not enough. What will the Commissioner do for its implementation? How will we properly protect marine reserves? And when will we finally put an end to subsidised overfishing and destructive bottom trawling?

Niclas Herbst (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Zum Europatag haben Fischerinnen und Fischer in ganz Europa ihre Schiffshörner ertönen lassen aus Protest gegen aktuelle Pläne der Kommission. Das heißt, wir haben es geschafft, Menschen, die wir brauchen, die wir einbinden wollen, gegen uns aufzubringen. Damit muss Schluss sein. Wir müssen endlich damit anfangen, auch gerade den Fischereisektor mit einzubauen.

Ich nehme mal als Beispiel den Bereich der Krabbenfischerei. Die haben sich große Sorgen gemacht bei der Vorlage des Aktionsplans. Sie machen sich auch große Sorgen bei der Diskussion um das Nature Restoration Law. Das sind Menschen, die wir brauchen, die kulturelles Erbe weitertragen, die für den Tourismus extrem wichtig sind, und die im Übrigen auch davon leben, für die wir uns einsetzen müssen.

Ich bin Ihnen dankbar, Herr Kommissar, auch den Kollegen McAllister und Jens Gieseke, dass Sie mir geantwortet haben und klar gemacht haben, dass Sie diese Pläne vom Tisch nehmen. Auf der anderen Seite ist es wirklich problematisch, wenn in einer Zeit, wo gerade das Thünen-Institut, also die Wissenschaftler, denen Sie vertrauen – man weiß es –, eine Studie vorlegt, die belegt, dass die Auswirkungen der Krabbenfischerei auf den Meeresboden eindeutig sehr begrenzt sind.

Also lassen Sie uns diesen konfrontativen Weg verlassen und lassen Sie uns endlich regionale Lösungen finden, mit den Menschen, mit den Fischern vor Ort! Das ist der deutlich bessere Weg als das, was Sie jetzt konfrontativ so vorlegen.

César Luena (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, ayer tuvimos un debate que había pedido el Grupo PPE y que buscaba enfrentar —creo que con gran irresponsabilidad— a los agricultores con las políticas de sostenibilidad y de restauración de la naturaleza.

Hacer de la transición ecológica un enemigo es un error bastante grave, no solo en el sector agrícola, sino también en el pesquero y, en general, en todos los sectores. Porque la evidencia científica es clara: hay que proteger, restaurar y cuidar los ecosistemas si queremos que sean funcionales a largo plazo.

Vamos con los océanos, que es el tema de hoy. Son el sumidero de carbono más importante. Son fundamentales para amortiguar los impactos del cambio climático y también nos proporcionan una de las fuentes más importantes de alimentos. Por ello, yo creo que la Comunicación de la Comisión es importante. Quiero felicitar personalmente al comisario, que veo que se le da bastante cera, pero también hay muchos diputados que apoyamos su trabajo. Somos muchos los que apoyamos el trabajo del comisario.

Porque esta Comunicación aúna los intereses pesqueros con la necesidad de proteger y de cuidar nuestros océanos. Las prácticas pesqueras tienen que ser más sostenibles, las capturas accidentales deben acabar y a la vez se debe garantizar una transición justa al sector pesquero.

Soy ponente para la Ley de Restauración de la Naturaleza. La Ley corre peligro de ser aprobada y esta amenaza pone en riesgo hábitats, ecosistemas y especies marinas, pero también la sostenibilidad de las áreas costeras y pesqueras, porque una pesca sostenible y resistente significa ecosistemas marinos protegidos y restaurados. Hay que metérselo en la cabeza.

Celebro el acuerdo sobre el Tratado de Alta Mar, que contribuye al objetivo de protección del 30 % de zonas marinas para 2030 que habíamos acordado en la COP 15.

Así que, señorías, ahora que podemos actuar, creo que tenemos que hacerlo juntos. Decía ayer que la historia y las sociedades que están por venir nos lo van a agradecer. Y, si no lo hacemos, nos condenarán. Y —miro a la derecha de la Cámara— les condenarán.

Catherine Chabaud (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire à l'environnement, à l'océan et à la pêche, si les États de la planète ont réussi à se mettre d'accord après 20 ans de négociations sur un traité pour préserver la biodiversité en haute mer, malgré un contexte géopolitique très tendu, c'est pour une raison simple: les représentants étatiques prennent conscience que notre avenir collectif passe aussi par la sauvegarde de l'océan et qu'il est en danger.

Où que nous soyons sur terre, nous partageons le même océan. Que l'on soit autrichien, hongrois ou Portugais, nous bénéficions tous de ses bienfaits: l'oxygène que nous respirons, le carbone qu'il absorbe, les protéines, mais aussi les ressources génétiques qui étaient l'un des enjeux de la négociation sur la haute mer. L'océan est notre bien commun et le préserver et le régénérer est de notre responsabilité individuelle et collective. Alors responsabilité à l'échelle globale – et je voudrais saluer l'engagement de la Commission qui a contribué à l'obtention de ce traité – mais aussi à l'échelle européenne, et c'est tout l'enjeu du plan d'action pour le milieu marin que la Commission propose, plan que je soutiens.

Au cœur de ces deux démarches, les aires marines protégées constituent un réel outil pour régénérer l'océan. Les scientifiques sont unanimes sur les bénéfices environnementaux, mais aussi économiques et sociaux qu'elles engendrent. Mais il nous faut aussi trouver des solutions alternatives aux fortes pressions de nos activités sur terre et en mer. Adapter nos pratiques de pêche, mais aussi développer l'écodesign des infrastructures maritimes. Je vais vous dire, même modifier des pratiques dans ce qui fut mon métier, la course au large, parce que nous aussi, nous avons des impacts, nous connaissons des collisions avec les cétacés. Il est possible d'associer développement économique, mais aussi régénération de la nature, les deux ne sont pas contradictoires. Donc notre travail est de promouvoir les solutions allant dans ce sens. Il y a urgence, donc il faut aller vite.

Grace O'Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Commissioner Sinkevičius, colleagues, Ireland's Marine Institute this month released a report on ocean climate. The findings of this report should jolt MEPs into immediate climate action. More than 90% of the excess heat we humans create is soaked up by the oceans. We have reached the limit of how much the oceans can take. Every piece of plastic produced and discarded, every carbon-rich seabed bottom trawled, the ocean takes the hit and we are seeing the impacts. Sea surface temperatures increased by 0.5 degrees in just ten years. The heat is accumulating, penetrating deeper and deeper into the oceans, accelerating climate change.

In the last elections, politicians here made promise after promise to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. Well, the Nature Restoration Law is here. The action plan is here. So I'm asking you MEPs not to go back on your promises. We need the Nature Restoration Law. We need the action plan. This is climate action. So please remember your promises and support the plans that are on the table and the European Green Deal.

Anna Zalewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Tak, mamy za sobą porozumienie z Montrealu, marcowe porozumienie ONZ, komunikat i dokument, nad którym pracujemy, o odbudowie natury. To wszystko budzi ogromne emocje. Dlaczego? Dlatego, że niestety, jak zwykle, jest wizją, jest deklaracją słabo udowodnioną naukowo, w dodatku niepoliczoną.

Przypominam Państwu, że tak samo bawiliśmy się z pakietem Fit for 55. W tej chwili porozmawiajcie ze swoimi obywatelami, którzy będą osobiście ponosić koszty naszych ambicji. Będą karani. Będą zmuszani. Będą wypełniać określone obowiązki, wyciągając swoje pieniądze, nie mając pewności, jakie efekty uzyskają.

Dlatego, jeżeli nie policzymy, jeżeli nie dedykujemy określonych rozwiązań z pełnym wsparciem finansowym po to, żeby posprzątać, odbudować i jednocześnie zabrać się za pochłanianie dwutlenku węgla, bo taki jest potencjał oceanu, to zniszczymy kolejną gałąź gospodarki. Znowu uderzymy w rybaków. Panie Komisarzu, chcę Pana poinformować, że w Polsce wspólna polityka dotycząca rybołówstwa doprowadziła do rujnacji tej dziedziny gospodarki. To się nie może powtórzyć. Myślmy o przyszłości. Myślmy o ludziach, którzy wiedzą, w jaki sposób korzystać z natury i jak o nią dbać.

Jordan Bardella (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire européen, vous conduisez nos pêcheurs à la ruine. Ces dernières semaines, le mouvement de protestation des pêcheurs français a trouvé un écho dans toute l'Europe. Comme en France, les pêcheurs allemands, néerlandais, belges et irlandais lancent un appel de détresse aux dirigeants de l'Union européenne. Ils ont exprimé leur désarroi face à une véritable avalanche de normes et d'interdictions qui menacent la survie d'une filière tout entière. Le dernier projet de la Commission, qui vise à interdire systématiquement le chalutage de fond dans les zones maritimes protégées, représente une menace directe pour des milliers d'emplois et ne répond pas au problème environnemental qui aurait mérité un examen de la situation au cas par cas.

Pour les pêcheurs, c'est un ultime coup de massue après des années d'interdictions en tout genre. Déjà fortement pénalisés par l'explosion du prix des carburants, ils doivent faire face à des fermetures arbitraires de zones de pêche dans l'Atlantique, et à la réduction de leurs zones d'activité pour laisser place à de gigantesques parcs éoliens offshore. Ailleurs dans le monde, on regarde avec avidité la déliquescence de la pêche européenne. La perte de compétitivité de la filière, accablée par les normes, va conduire à inonder encore davantage notre marché de produits non européens.

La dépendance de l'Europe est déjà criante. Plus de la moitié des produits de pêche consommés dans l'UE sont importés depuis des pays tiers. La flotte de pêche française aura, elle, été divisée par deux en 30 ans, et l'emploi s'est effondré dans la filière. L'ambition affichée par Bruxelles est le développement d'une pêche durable. Et promouvoir cette pêche durable, ce n'est pas imposer à nos pêcheurs des normes drastiques tout en laissant le marché européen ouvert aux quatre vents. Promouvoir la pêche durable, c'est donner à nos pêcheurs les moyens de rester compétitifs pour qu'ils puissent nous nourrir sans que nous n'ayons à importer des marchandises venues du bout du monde. La pêche mondialisée, qui entraîne la standardisation des goûts et des pratiques de consommation, est bien le pire ennemi de la biodiversité marine. On ne répondra pas à cet enjeu crucial par le matraquage législatif, mais par un retour à une pêche de proximité et une pêche à l'échelle humaine.

João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o setor das pescas enfrenta uma situação que exige medidas imediatas e concretas para assegurar a sua continuidade. No entanto, o que a Comissão aqui apresenta é uma mão cheia de nada.

Tanto este plano de ação, como outros documentos recentemente publicados procuram apontar a responsabilidade da situação do setor aos Estados-Membros e aos pescadores, que, dizem, não aplicam adequadamente os instrumentos da UE. A Comissão lava as mãos como Pilatos e sacode responsabilidades.

Senhor Comissário, quando vão reconhecer que a Política Comum das Pescas – desligada da realidade, desprezando a situação específica das pescas nacionais, promovendo maior centralização, retirando soberania aos Estados sobre as suas zonas económicas exclusivas, promovendo a liberalização e o desmantelamento de instrumentos públicos de regulação, deficiente em apoios, em particular, à pequena pesca – quando vão reconhecer que a política da UE para as pescas tem contribuído sobremaneira para o declínio deste setor?

O setor precisa de soluções, de respostas concretas e eficazes, ajustadas a cada realidade e não o vazio de propostas ou um caminho que põe em causa o futuro da pesca.

Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il mese scorso alle Nazioni Unite si è finalmente trovato, dopo anni di negoziato, un accordo sulla necessità di avere un approccio olistico complessivo per la conservazione delle risorse delle aree più sensibili, e non solo delle acque internazionali.

Dobbiamo scongiurare in ogni modo lo scioglimento progressivo dei ghiacciai, coniugando la battaglia per l'azzeramento delle emissioni di CO2 con quella per la conservazione degli oceani, giacché le due battaglie sono strettamente collegate, sono di fatto un'unica missione che abbiamo il dovere di portare a termine.

La minaccia del deep sea mining è dunque pericolosa e inaccettabile, visto che questa pratica rischia di creare danni immani e irreparabili ai ghiacciai, agli stock ittici, alla biodiversità di aree che hanno un valore ambientale ed economico inestimabile e che sono importantissime anche per la ricerca scientifica.

L'Unione europea sia leader di questa battaglia di civiltà e non ceda di un passo rispetto alla tutela degli oceani, dicendo anche un no secco al deep sea mining.

Maria da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, o oceano é o maior reservatório de vida na terra. Estima-se que existam entre 500 000 e 10 milhões de espécies marinhas. Proteger este recurso, esta extraordinária biodiversidade é uma obrigação de todos nós, para as presentes e futuras gerações.

Mas a proteção do oceano não significa abandono. Não significa abandonar as inúmeras famílias e empresas que dependem deste recurso, em especial as comunidades costeiras. Proteger o oceano significa evitar e combater a poluição marinha, proteger habitats, em especial os mais ameaçados, como os recifes de coral, e encontrar novas formas de aproveitar o extraordinário potencial do mar, incluindo ao nível de recursos alimentares até agora inexplorados, fazendo-o de uma forma sustentável.

Para isso, o investimento em mais investigação científica, tecnologia e inovação é absolutamente fundamental, não apenas para tornar mais sustentáveis as práticas já existentes, desde logo a pesca, mas para explorar novas potencialidades, conjugando a sustentabilidade ambiental e a económica.

Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, tutti vogliamo la sostenibilità ambientale ma l'eliminazione della piccola pesca a strascico io non penso porti ai risultati che volete ottenere. Non c'è una valutazione di impatto, noi l'aspettiamo, e soprattutto si sarà accorto che qua c'è un fronte partitico molto trasversale che va dalla sinistra alla destra, tornando indietro: ne terrei conto.

Perché non va bene? Perché punisce i piccoli senza alcuna distinzione rispetto ai grandi; sono i grandi armatori, le grandi industrie che quelle, sì, certamente inquineranno di più.

Perché non va bene? Perché distrugge posti di lavoro in tutta Europa di persone che hanno investito una vita con enormi sacrifici, con piccole imbarcazioni nella pesca e oggi non possono più accedere ai fondi europei e non possono convertirsi in altri settori lavorativi. Ne vorremo tenere conto? Ci vuole del buon senso.

E perché non va bene? Perché c'è un colpo alla qualità del cibo, con effetti sulla filiera della ristorazione e sulla filiera turistica. In Emilia Romagna ci sono 200 imbarcazioni per 100 chilometri di costa, due imbarcazioni per chilometro. Io vorrei capire come queste rovinano l'ecosistema.

Noi amiamo l'Unione europea, io mi batto tutti i giorni per un'Unione europea più forte e più unita. Non lo si faccia criminalizzando i piccoli e a favore dei forti, perché questo fa solo lievitare la sfiducia nei confronti dell'Europa.

Asger Christensen (Renew). – Hr. formand! Tak, fordi kommissærerne er til stede i dag. I går diskuterede vi landbruget, og der var landbrugskommissæren ikke til stede. Så tusind tak, fordi du er her nu. Jeg er alvorligt bekymret over den handlingsplan, der er kommet fra Kommissionen på fiskernes vegne. Det er meget langt fra virkeligheden. Der er rigtig, rigtig, rigtig mange planer for vores havmiljø, biodiversitet, natur, havvindmøller, sejlruter, naturbeskyttelse, etc. Hvor er der plads til fiskerne? Fiskerne skal have første prioritet i min optik for at sikre sundere og klimavenlige og proteinholdige fødevarer. De fanger altså med trawl. Sådan er virkeligheden.

Men der er kæmpestor forskel på bundtrawl og bomtrawl. I Kommissionens handlingsplan lyder det til, at man ikke har set på de forskelligheder. Vi skal fortsætte med at udvikle nye og innovative fiskeredskaber, som skaber mere bæredygtigt fiskeri. Fiskerne er allerede godt i gang med det. Vi skal have en overordnet plan for, hvad havet skal bruges til, og i min optik så er det animalske proteiner, der står først på dagsorden. Men det skal selvfølgelig ske på en bæredygtig måde. Som det er i dag, er det kun fiskerne, der har fået kvoter. Skarv, sæler har fri adgang til et stort tag-selv-bord. Selvfølgelig skal der være plads til alle. Fisk, energi, natur og så videre. Men Kommissionens forslag går for vidt. Jeg vil lade fiskernes demonstration i går tale sit eget sprog.

Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, pour qu'il y ait des pêcheurs, il faut qu'il y ait des poissons. Pour qu'il y ait des poissons, il faut qu'il y ait des écosystèmes en bon état. C'est une logique simple: sans nature, pas de nourriture. Pourtant, il semble que cette logique échappe à une bonne partie des députés du PPE et de Renaissance. Si l'on veut qu'il y ait encore des pêcheurs en Europe dans 30 ans, il faut réduire rapidement l'impact de la pêche sur les écosystèmes. Avec ce plan d'action sur les écosystèmes marins, la Commission européenne a osé poser ce problème sur la table. Le chalutage de fond a des conséquences graves sur les écosystèmes marins. Il faut y répondre.

La Commission n'a même pas proposé de règlement. Elle a seulement rappelé aux États membres leurs obligations dans les zones Natura 2000 et les a invités à interdire le chalut de fond dans les autres aires marines protégées. Pour avoir fait cela, elle a été accusée, y compris par des ministres, de vouloir la mort de la pêche artisanale, de vouloir affamer les Européens. Un peu plus, on les accusait de manger des enfants.

Il est dommage que ceux qui ont pour responsabilité d'assurer la pérennité des activités de pêche et la protection des océans préfèrent répéter bêtement les éléments de langage des lobbies de la pêche industrielle, plutôt que de s'attaquer aux vrais problèmes et d'engager la transition vers une pêche à faible impact. De nombreux exemples existent. Interdire le chalut de fond dans une aire marine protégée peut être une opportunité pour la petite pêche artisanale. Alors remettons un peu de relationnel dans ce débat, écoutons les alertes des scientifiques, et travaillons à la mise en œuvre de ce plan d'action.

Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, ik vraag me steeds meer af – alle mooie woorden ten spijt: is de EU er nog echt wel voor onze vissers? Natuurlijk zijn er maatregelen nodig om de mariene ecosystemen en onze visbestanden te beschermen: investeren in selectiever vistuig bijvoorbeeld, voortzetting van de TAC- en quotasystemen. Maar wat de Commissie nu op tafel legt, gaat echt veel te ver.

De noodsignalen die vissers op 9 mei overal lieten horen, waren zeer duidelijk. Men voelt zich in de steek gelaten. Velen zien geen uitweg meer. Hun visgronden maken plaats voor windmolenparken en natuurgebieden. En daarbovenop komt dan nu de oproep van de Commissie om geen enkele bodemberoerende visserij meer toe te staan in de Natura 2000—gebieden, een disproportionele maatregel die de visserij zeer hard zal raken en die geen recht doet aan het feit dat op heel veel plekken bodemberoerende visserij lang niet zo schadelijk is als nu wordt voorgesteld. Ondertussen heeft de EU de pulsvisserij, een van de meest duurzame vismethoden, verboden. Dat is toch allemaal niet uit te leggen.

Commissaris, ik roep u op: luister naar de vissers. We hebben ze hard nodig. Ze zorgen voor onze voedselvoorziening. Laten we hun de ruimte geven die ze nodig hebben om hun belangrijke beroep te kunnen voortzetten. Vis is gezond en de meeste visbestanden zijn momenteel goed. Het is aan ons om te laten zien dat de EU er wel degelijk ook is voor onze vissers.

Annalisa Tardino (ID). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, non ci stancheremo di ripetere un secco no alle vostre proposte, né consentiremo di cancellare un intero settore, la pesca, e con esso i pescatori, ovvero dei lavoratori che non solo non sono tutelati da questa Europa che finge di essere democratica, ma anzi ne sono osteggiati.

Se non è vostra intenzione eliminare la pesca a strascico dovete metterlo per iscritto, perché leggendo il piano d'azione sembra proprio il contrario.

Non assisteremo silenti a ulteriori danni per l'intero settore, né accetteremo un aumento delle importazioni da paesi terzi, con pesce qualitativamente inferiore, non sicuro, se non illegale.

Ci sono importanti studi che dimostrano come questa tipologia di pesca non solo non danneggi i nostri mari, ma anzi è assolutamente utile. E non pensate di chiudere altre porzioni di mare, oltre quelle già previste nel Mediterraneo, perché non ci stiamo.

Vogliamo mangiare pesce siciliano, italiano ed europeo e soprattutto garantire il lavoro di tante famiglie.

(L'oratrice accetta di rispondere a una domanda ‘cartellino blu’)

Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE), domanda ‘cartellino blu’ . – Io vorrei chiedere alla collega, che è al governo ormai da mesi, cosa intende fare davvero per i pescatori. E finitela di dire loro delle bugie!

Lei sa che cos'è la direttiva quadro, che dal 2020 deve essere rispettata, sull'ambiente marino? Sa cos'è la direttiva Habitat, che dal 1994 esiste ed è in piedi?

Piuttosto, cosa vuol fare il suo governo con i 43 milioni di euro del FEAMP che rischiamo di perdere? Dove sono i bandi del FEAMP per dare ai pescatori dei punti di sbarco veri e dei mercati ittici? Dove sta la cassa integrazione per i pescatori?

Cosa intende fare questo governo per uno Stato membro che è circondato dal Mar Mediterraneo e che vive anche di pesca?

Annalisa Tardino (ID), risposta a una domanda ‘cartellino blu’ . – Collega, ci risponda lei su quello che ha fatto in due mandati e che cosa avete fatto al governo per un intero decennio.

Perché questo governo, in pochi mesi, ha dato delle risposte importanti ai più fragili e tra i più fragili ci sono certamente la categoria dei pescatori, e non certo ai poteri forti, quelli che avete garantito voi nei governi passati del nostro Stato.

Silvia Modig (The Left). – Arvoisa puhemies, mielestäni tämä keskustelu on tehnyt valitettavan selväksi sen tosiasian, että tässä salissa ei ole vielä riittävää ymmärrystä siitä, mitä biodiversiteetti on ja mikä on sen vaikutus ihmisen hyvinvointiin.

Yksinkertaistettuna: mitä vahvempi biodiversiteetti, sitä parempi on planeettamme sopeutumiskyky väistämättä edessä olemaan lämpenemiseen. Biodiversiteetistä huolehtiminen on omasta hyvinvoinnistamme huolehtimista.

Oikeiston puolelta on esitetty, että tämä liiallinen biodiversiteettiin keskittyminen on uhka ruokaturvalle, kun todellisuus on päinvastoin. Biodiversiteettikato on suurin uhka ruokaturvallemme. Jos emme turvaa biodiversiteettiä, niin ruokaturvamme vaarantuu. Suomessa opetetaan peruskoulussa jo aivan ensimmäisinä vuosina, mikä on esimerkiksi pölyttäjien rooli kasvien lisääntymisessä ja kasvamisessa. Selkeästi opetussuunnitelmat tältä osin ovat hyvin erilaisia eri Euroopan maissa.

Täällä on oikeiston puolelta sanottu, että tämä liiallinen keskittyminen biodiversiteettiin vie kalastajilta työn. Tilanne on täysin päinvastoin. Teidän lyhytnäköinen näkemyksenne ei ole kalastajien etu. Kalastajien etu on se, että kalakannat ovat vahvoja, jotta heillä olisi ammatti vielä tulevaisuudessa. Jos oikeiston näkemys voittaa, sanon kalastajille, että uudelleenkouluttautukaa nopeasti, koska jos tätä linjaa jatketaan, kohta ei ole mitään kalastettavaa enää jäljellä.

Peter van Dalen (PPE). – Voorzitter, de Commissie wil de mariene ecosystemen versterken en verbeteren. En de Commissie wil de visserij versterken en verduurzamen. Ik ben het daarmee eens.

De vraag is natuurlijk: hoe krijg je die twee bij elkaar? Want voor de visserij betekent dit dat er selectiever moet worden gevist: je wil die vis naar boven halen die je nodig hebt. De CO2-uitstoot moet verminderd worden, brandstofgebruik moet naar beneden en de bodemberoering moet veel minder. Hoe krijg je dat bij elkaar? Dat kan door de pulskorvisserij.

Een meerderheid van dit Parlement heeft in 2019 de pulskorvisserij verboden. Omdat men dacht: vissen worden geëlektrocuteerd of vissen verdwijnen, er is geen zeeleven meer. Er is wetenschappelijk aangetoond dat deze leugens – mevrouw Roose, het zijn leugens – wetenschappelijk is aangetoond dat het allemaal flauwekul is wat toen gedacht werd. Wetenschappelijk heeft de dissertatie van dr. Pim Boute aangetoond: de puls is puik. Hij heeft duizenden vissen onderzocht en de conclusie was: de pulsvisserij moet terug.

Ik heb de dissertatie aan de commissaris gegeven, dus ik ben benieuwd hoe hij de verordening technische maatregelen gaat aanpassen om de puls terug te brengen. Stoppen met die leugens over de puls, want de puls is goed voor de natuur en de puls is goed voor de visserij.

Predrag Fred Matić (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, u globalnom kontekstu jedna trećina svih riba se lovi na neodrživ način, a najrizičnija situacija je na Mediteranu gdje gotovo sve vrste pokazuju znakove prekomjernog izlova. Do sada se nikada nismo suočavali s ovoliko posljedica klimatskih promjena, a morska staništa nisu bila toliko ugrožena kao danas.

Nezakoniti ribolov je uvijek postojao i neće ga se nikada moći iskorijeniti u potpunosti. No, to nije jedini problem i uzrok sve manjeg broja ribara i sve većeg rizika od sigurnosti opskrbe hranom.

Rad na obnovi prirode je potreban da bi se umanjile štetne posljedice klimatskih promjena i nezakonitog ribolova jer se s povećanjem broja ugroženih morskih staništa smanjuje zaliha ribe i narušava egzistencija svih ribara.

Prioritet Europske unije mora biti obnova prirode putem kojeg ćemo osigurati dugoročnu opskrbu morskom hranom i spriječiti gubitak poslova u ribarskom sektoru. Ne bude li promjena, ljudi koji žive na otocima i na obali prvi će osjetiti posljedice neodrživog ribolova, a upravo oni najviše ovise o ribarstvu.

Sada imamo tu priliku i nemojmo dopustiti da nam se djeca srame.

Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, avec ce plan d'action, l'Europe montre certes qu'elle a une longueur d'avance pour protéger nos écosystèmes marins, mais si on veut atteindre nos objectifs, ça se prépare, ça s'accompagne, et ça se discute. Comme je l'ai rappelé dans le rapport sur la cogestion des pêches, c'est le dialogue avec toutes les parties prenantes qui nous permettra d'obtenir des solutions performantes, sur mesure, et acceptées par tous.

Je soutiens ce plan d'action, mais je regrette que la Commission européenne envisage la fin de la pêche de fond dans toutes les aires marines protégées, sans aucune consultation et sans aucune prise en compte des spécificités des zones concernées. Oui, je suis inquiète pour nos pêcheurs artisanaux. En Normandie, dans ma région, caractérisée par la pêche artisanale, la proposition radicale de la Commission ferait un grand vide. Par exemple, dans la Manche, elle ferait disparaître 80 % des petits bateaux. L'amélioration de nos pratiques est nécessaire parce que protéger l'environnement, c'est assurer la durabilité de l'activité de pêche. Mais c'est en individualisant les mesures qu'elles seront vraiment efficaces et adaptées. Veillons à ne pas imposer des interdictions uniformes qui pointent du doigt toute une profession, et condamnent la pêche artisanale et côtière.

Ce qui nous importe, c'est l'état des fonds marins. Alors continuons à investir, notamment via le Fonds européen pour les affaires maritimes, la pêche et l'aquaculture, le FEAMPA dans nos régions, dans les techniques de pêche plus sélectives, moins dommageables. Accompagnons la transition du secteur, accompagnons les pêcheurs, car ce sont bien eux qui s'efforcent de nous nourrir. Ce sont eux qui participent à la souveraineté alimentaire quand nous importons aujourd'hui plus de 70 % des produits de la pêche.

Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Commissioner, I have to say I am surprised by the tone of this discussion. This is the spring when finally the nations of the world agreed on a global High Seas Treaty to protect our oceans and ocean wildlife. These have been exploited and we have risks of overfishing, risks of climate crisis, especially in the sensitive Arctic Ocean here near Europe. And this discussion is not talking about the real issue: how to make sure the way we use oceans and marine ecosystems is sustainable because there is no fishing if we continue overfishing. This should be the tone of the debate. I have to thank the Commission for being active in finally addressing these issues.

The UN biodiversity summit last year approved a historic deal, taking much-needed steps to protect nature and to stop the loss of biodiversity by 2030. The High Seas Treaty is an important element of that and I am happy that the EU has pledged, also for the Global Oceans Programme, financial resources to support this work and to make sure that we stop practices that are unsustainable and create protection of wildlife and marine ecosystems that is much needed in Europe and elsewhere.

Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señor presidente, hemos visto cómo cada equis tiempo viene la Comisión Europea a decirnos que tenemos que proteger los mares, que tenemos que respetar la biodiversidad y que tenemos que respetar los ecosistemas, pero nadie viene nunca a decirnos que tenemos que respetar a los pescadores, que tenemos que respetar a sus familias, que tenemos que respetar a la población y que tenemos que respetar, en general, a los europeos, a los cuales se les van quitando uno tras otro sus medios de vida.

España no se entiende sin mar. Tenemos ocho mil kilómetros de costa. España puso los mares en el mapa del mundo. España tiene la mayor industria pesquera de la Unión, el 20 % de la producción total. Por eso, somos los primeros interesados y realmente ocupados en proteger dicho recurso. Los mares y la biodiversidad nos importan y mucho, muchísimo. Pero nos importan mucho y muchísimo los pescadores, nos importan mucho y muchísimo los agricultores y nos importan mucho y muchísimo los españoles y los europeos en general, que se ven permanentemente agredidos por estas cuestiones, siempre motivadas por la ideología de los más radicales, que la Comisión ha hecho suya sistemáticamente.

Ustedes vuelven a atentar contra la pesca de Europa mientras China subsidia y potencia su flota pesquera y la utiliza, además, como arma geopolítica, mientras la pesca ilegal marroquí sigue empleando redes de deriva, cortinas de muerte, pese a los millones que se le pagaron para que no las utilizara.

En pesca como en agricultura subsidian a Marruecos para que continúe riéndose de ustedes, que lo merecen, y de millones de europeos, que no lo merecen. En realidad, deberían renunciar a la Agenda 2030 y al Pacto Verde, que es lo que nos está llevando a esta falta de respeto a los europeos en general.

André Rougé (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, grâce à la France et ses 11 millions de kilomètres carrés de domaine maritime, l'Union européenne dispose du premier espace maritime mondial. C'est grâce à la France d'outre-mer que cet espace dispose de nombreux atouts qui nous obligent. En effet, nombre de nos concitoyens vivent grâce à l'océan, et sa conservation, son avenir et sa protection imposent un effort constant.

La coopération des États maritimes permettrait d'apporter les réponses et les innovations nécessaires aux enjeux marins. J'ai proposé en commission REGI la création d'une agence européenne de la mer sur le modèle de l'Agence spatiale basée à Kourou, en Guyane. Proposition malheureusement rejetée pour des considérations strictement partisanes. Grâce à cette coopération, l'Europe deviendrait un acteur reconnu, capable de répondre à de nombreux enjeux et à la recherche dans les océans Atlantique, Pacifique et Indien. Alors, parce que nos échanges démontrent la pluralité des enjeux océaniques, il est temps, chers collègues, de mettre de côté toute vision politicienne et partisane pour se concentrer sur l'essentiel, l'intérêt général, et en ce sens, de donner à l'océan sa juste place dans nos politiques.

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question ‘carton bleu’)

Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE), question ‘carton bleu’ . – Monsieur Rougé, j'ai une petite question. Il y a quelques minutes, le président de votre parti, M. Jordan Bardella, a fait un discours sur les pêcheurs, puis ensuite il est directement parti de l'hémicycle sans attendre la réponse du commissaire. C'est un petit peu à l'image des députés de votre parti. Que ce soit sur la bataille de la senne démersale, sur la loi sur la restauration de la nature, sur le rapport ou sur la distribution des quotas, votre groupe n'a même pas nommé de rapporteur fictif. Vous prétendez défendre des pêcheurs, alors pourquoi au niveau du Rassemblement National, il n'y a jamais personne?

André Rougé (ID), Réponse ‘carton bleu’ . – Chère collègue, je pense que vous m'avez mal entendu. Je viens d'expliquer que j'ai en commission déposé une proposition de création d'une agence européenne de la mer qui n'a même pas été examinée au seul motif que j'étais membre du Rassemblement National. Alors, en termes de partisianisme, de sectarisme, nous n'avons pas de leçons à recevoir de votre part.

Nikolaj Villumsen (The Left). – Hr. formand! Hvis vi skal have et levende hav i fremtiden, hvis vi skal sikre biodiversiteten, hvis vi skal have et bæredygtigt fiskeri, så er der én ting, vi må gøre: beskytte og genoprette vores havområder. Ikke blot med flotte ord, men med handling. Det er afgørende. Tag blot mit eget land, Danmark. Her taler regeringen varmt om at beskytte dele af vores havområder. Det er fint. Men det klinger hult, for samtidig fortsætter regeringen med at tillade brugen af skadelige bundtrawl i beskyttede områder. Man kan ikke ødelægge havbunden og kalde det beskyttelse på samme tid. Det går ikke. Kære kolleger, kære kommissær. Det er på tide, at vi sætter handling bag ordene og beskytter biodiversiteten, også når det gælder havmiljøet.

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías, yo no voy a repetirme sobre el plan de acción, ya lo he dicho otras veces: inoportuno, contraproducente, mal explicado, jurídicamente confuso e injusto con el arrastre.

La política pesquera de la Comisión Europea sufre en los últimos años, a mi juicio, de un problema estructural: el predominio del ecologismo radical en perjuicio del sector pesquero. Esta situación, a mi juicio, se debe en parte a la propia estructura organizativa de la Comisión. Yo no veo adecuado que el comisario encargado de medio ambiente y océanos sea también el responsable de la política pesquera. De facto, este reparto competencial consolida la superioridad del pilar ecológico frente a las dimensiones económica, social y de empleo de la pesca. Esta —la pesca— se diluye. Recuerdo perfectamente los problemas que hubo hace cuatro años para incluir la palabra pesca en el título de la cartera del señor Sinkevičius.

La Comisión Europea —creo yo— debería proceder lo antes posible a una reorganización de forma que la DG MARE dependa, por ejemplo, del comisario de Agricultura. Al fin y al cabo, la formación relevante del Consejo es AGRIFISH: agricultura y pesca, y ambos son sectores extractivos. Me atrevería a decir: ¿por qué no un comisario europeo dedicado exclusivamente a la pesca? ¿Por qué no recuperar la Dirección General de Pesca, la DG FISH?

Señor Sinkevičius, el pasado martes, Día de Europa, el sector pesquero se unió a una protesta sin precedentes. Pescadores de Alemania, Francia, Italia, Irlanda, los Países Bajos y, por supuesto, España manifestaron su profundo malestar.

Señor comisario, no basta con decir que escucha al sector. Tiene que ser un diálogo efectivo, consecuente. También con acciones que sean coherentes con ese diálogo. La pesca necesita hechos, no palabras. El futuro del planeta tiene que ser verde y azul, pero el futuro de los pescadores no puede ser negro.

Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Sur President, kbirt imdawwar bil-baħar f'pajjiż fejn il-baħar jirrappreżenta kull aspett tal-ħajja tagħna: id-divertiment, l-ikel, is-saħħa fiżika u mentali, l-ekonomija u x-xogħol, u bla dubju rridu niġġieldu l-abbuż li żgur mhux ġej mis-sajjieda artiġjanali ż-żgħar.

Rajna t-twissijiet tal-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Ambjent dwar l-istat attwali ta' degradazzjoni tal-ibħra Ewropew u rridu nindirizzaw l-impatt tal-attivitajiet umani. Naqblu dwaru, kemm dawk li rridu nipproteġu l-ambjent u anke dawk illi fl-istess ħin nirrappreżentaw l-aħjar interess tas-sajjieda. Kummissarju, irridu nindirizzaw ir-rimi illegali ta' skart tossiku fil-baħar mit-turiżmu marittimu, illi qed jagħmluh biex jiffrankaw l-ispejjeż. Tafu illi 3000 vapur jarmu żejt minerali fl-ibħra tagħna ta' kull sena? Dan huwa ekwivalenti ta' tmien oil spills kuljum, kull wieħed kbir daqs 750 grawnd tal-futbol.

Għandna l-pjan ta' azzjoni, il-liġi dwar ir-restawr tan-natura imma issa hemm bżonn l-azzjoni. Investejna f'sistemi li jiskopru dawn l-illegalitajiet, u ejja nużawhom. Il-protezzjoni tal-ibħra hija essenzjali għas-sajjieda u għalina lkoll.

Valérie Hayer (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je suis venue vous parler de nos littoraux, de ceux qui en vivent et de ceux qui les font vivre. Parce que la pêche, c'est un tout: un écosystème économique, écologique et alimentaire. Alors je le dis avec force, l'avenir de nos pêcheurs réside dans la protection de nos écosystèmes marins. Il est donc indispensable d'acter des mesures de protection propres à chaque aire marine protégée pour permettre une pêche durable. L'avenir de nos pêcheurs, c'est bien sûr aussi la pérennité de leurs activités, l'assurance d'une diversité dans la flotte des bateaux, pour que demain cette activité ne se résume pas juste aux gros navires qui mouillent au large, et aux petites embarcations en eaux peu profondes pour la beauté de la carte postale.

Parce que la pêche, qui draine des milliers d'emplois en mer comme sur terre, se pose aujourd'hui des questions presque existentielles. Ce que nous déciderons ici décidera de l'avenir de nos océans et de celui des pêcheurs des ports de Lorient, de La Turballe ou encore de Brest. Ces ports si chers au président de la Commission des pêches, Pierre Karleskind, au nom duquel je m'exprime aujourd'hui.

Mes chers collègues, ce n'est pas seulement l'avenir de nos pêcheurs qui se joue aujourd'hui, c'est aussi l'avenir de notre souveraineté alimentaire. Ne pas accompagner nos pêcheurs, c'est ouvrir la porte à toujours plus d'exportations depuis des pays dont nous ne maîtrisons pas les pratiques environnementales. C'est donc aussi notre souveraineté alimentaire qui est ici en jeu. Chers collègues, je nous invite donc à aborder la question des écosystèmes marins et des pêches ensemble pour une pêche durable dans des océans protégés.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, v únoru tohoto roku přijala Evropská komise akční plán pro mořské prostředí s cílem lépe chránit naše moře. Tuto aktivitu pochopitelně vítám. Byla to reakce na setkání COP 15 v Montrealu a Dohodu o novém globálním rámci biologické rozmanitosti. A chtěl bych poděkovat panu komisaři Sinkevičiusovi za jeho úsilí na tomto poli. Myslím si, že se musíme soustředit na obnovu biologické rozmanitosti, a to s cílem do roku 2030 chránit 30 % našich moří. Vím, že jsme se o tomto tématu zde na tomto plénu bavili mnohokrát a jsem trochu udiven z tónu této debaty. Jsem přesvědčen, že musíme udělat skutečně více pro ochranu našich moří. Chápu také zájmy rybářů a dalších dotčených odvětví. Nicméně si myslím, že je třeba se jednoznačně soustředit na obnovu biologické rozmanitosti a přestat užívat neudržitelné rybářské rybolovné praktiky. Průmyslový rybolov skutečně devastuje naše moře a dělá z nich mrtvá území. Tyto praktiky by měly být nepochybně nadále odsouzeny a neměly by být přijatelné na evropském kontinentu. A rybářům musíme poskytnout naši podporu. Samozřejmě drobný rybolov, udržitelný rybolov nechť je podporován, ale já aktivitu Komise vítám a čekám, jaké konkrétní pokyny poskytne členským státům. O nich se potom bavme daleko více konkrétně.

Clara Aguilera (S&D). – Señor presidente, en primer lugar, quiero mostrar mi solidaridad con el sector pesquero europeo y con la huelga que hizo el pasado día 9, el Día de Europa casualmente. Debemos entender qué es lo que está pasando.

Señor comisario, ha dicho usted: ‘asumimos la responsabilidad de cuidar nuestros mares y nuestros océanos’. ¿Quién puede estar en contra de eso? Evidentemente, asumimos esa responsabilidad.

Tenemos una política pesquera común desde el año 2013 —desde hace diez años—, que tiene unas características medioambientales y de sostenibilidad muy importantes, cuya obligatoriedad ha recaído en todo el sector pesquero europeo. Por tanto, quiero dejar clara una cosa: este plan de acción es un documento político, no normativo. No confundamos al sector. Es un documento político, de intenciones, de la Comisión.

Y no estoy de acuerdo con esa intención que se manifiesta claramente contra el arrastre. No todo el arrastre es igual y hay que proteger el arrastre artesanal. Por tanto, comisario, no vamos a coincidir en las medidas de acabar con el arrastre ahora como compromiso político.

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Mr President, saving the planet is not an easy task. We Scandinavians complain about biodiversity, saving our forests and using them sustainably. Farmers complain about changing our common agricultural policy to be biodiversity friendly and toxic-free.

Now with the oceans it is the same complaint. But dear Commissioner, please do not stop trying to prevent our self-destructive behaviour. Because if no one does it, soon there is no forests, no fish in the sea. And that is the point when our economy is going to fall and we all know that. We are just like addicts, not willing to change our behaviour.

And the last question is: seriously, do you think that this is going to work on a voluntary basis in cooperation with the Member States? What are the examples of the CITES biodiversity protection for over 40 years? Climate protection on voluntary basis by member states. We do need regulatory action I think, please brave up on this question as well.

Sara Cerdas (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, o novo acordo alcançado para o Tratado de Alto-Mar é o resultado de um esforço internacional para proteger os nossos oceanos e os seus recursos naturais, e combater a crise profunda que aqui se faz.

Ainda há muito a fazer para garantir que as regras do Tratado sejam efetivamente aplicadas e, por isso mesmo, é importante que trabalhemos todos juntos para garantir que este seja respeitado e executado, e isto inclui: o aumento das áreas protegidas em 30 %, como estabelecido na COP15; proteger os nossos oceanos da poluição, e aqui a importância de reduzirmos drasticamente o nosso uso de plástico; e também a promoção de atividades turísticas sustentáveis na economia azul, em especial nas regiões mais dependentes dos recursos dos oceanos, como são a Madeira e os Açores, regiões ultraperiféricas da União Europeia.

Os oceanos são vitais para a vida da Terra. É nossa responsabilidade protegê-los.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, the High Seas Treaty is a successful example of multilateral cooperation. We have now established a legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity. The importance of sound ocean governance cannot be overstated, mitigating the impacts of climate change. Our oceans provide us with invaluable ecological, economic and social benefits.

While it is important to recognise and celebrate the progress of the agreement, there is still much work to be done before it can be implemented effectively. To this end, it is imperative that the next steps are closely monitored. All nations have a part to play. There must also be adequate financial instruments in place and proper regulations for the establishment and management of marine protected areas and support for our fishers, who depend on the sea for their livelihoods, while at the same time ensuring that we have sustainable fishing.

Carmen Avram (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, după cum vedeți, așa cum e ea concepută, strategia de protejare și restaurare a ecosistemului marin stârnește multă îngrijorare în unele state membre, România inclusiv, deoarece Comisia ne spune că recomandările din planul de acțiune ar putea deveni legislație, iar pentru țara mea asta ar putea însemna sfârșitul pescuitului. Din pricina războiului, cantitatea de pește recoltat din Marea Neagră s-a redus cu 80 %. Pescarii fie nu ies în larg din cauza minelor și a activităților militare, fie pescuiesc, dar înghesuiți într-un perimetru restrâns, unde se simt mai siguri.

O extindere a zonelor protejate, oricum trasate neglijent în România, din păcate, ar îngreuna și mai mult activitatea economică și ar duce la supraexploatarea stocurilor în anumite arii. Interzicerea traulării ar lovi crunt și în pescari, și în mediu. Singurele specii de interes din zonă, în afară de calcan și șprot, sunt rapana și vongola, recoltate prin traulare. Fără ele, unii pescari ar da faliment, iar rapana, specie invazivă, s-ar extinde necontrolat. Vă solicit, deci, domnule comisar, să țineți cont de aceste particularități când veți analiza măsurile propuse de țara mea.

Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Caros Colegas, 95 % de Portugal é mar e a nossa história está profundamente ligada a ele. Os oceanos e a sua biodiversidade e os seus recursos são bens que devem ser preservados e protegidos. São, de resto, uma matéria à qual devemos mais atenção, não só aqui no Parlamento, mas na sociedade como um todo.

O seu papel no equilíbrio do planeta é crucial, como, por exemplo, na absorção de CO2. Também por isso, a sua gestão deve ser partilhada, reconhecendo os papéis de diferentes organizações e devemos envolver todas as partes interessadas no processo de tomada de decisão e gestão dos oceanos e recursos marinhos. Aliás, é fundamental o envolvimento de toda a comunidade piscatória para a conservação dos recursos e uma gestão razoável das quotas de pesca. A cogestão é, por isso, uma realidade para a qual devemos avançar, num quadro jurídico a nível europeu, garantindo uma gestão mais participada, democrática e atenta sobre uma parte tão importante do planeta.

Pietro Bartolo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, mio padre era un pescatore, io stesso sono stato un pescatore, questo intervento lo faccio come tale. So quanto è duro e faticoso questo lavoro e quanti sacrifici nel corso della vita gli uomini e le donne che stanno in mare fanno.

Commissario, le azioni della Commissione devono essere pensate non solo per i pescatori, ma anche con i pescatori, dalla Lituania a Lampedusa. Servono regole sostenibili da ogni punto di vista, ambientale, certo!, ma anche economico e sociale.

Non possiamo colpevolizzare i pescatori, le cause della distruzione dei mari sono da ricercare altrove. Il piano d'azione non può ignorare tutto questo, colpendo indiscriminatamente migliaia di famiglie e un settore importantissimo per la nostra economia.

Sostengo la protesta dei pescatori in corso in questi giorni in tutta Europa. Continueranno a lottare per preservare le loro famiglie, in modo particolare nelle zone periferiche, come la mia terra, già fortemente penalizzata e colpita dalla crisi. Combattiamo le vere cause del male dei mari.

Lo sa, Commissario? La riduzione degli stock ittici e l'alterazione degli ambienti marini avvengono anche laddove non c'è attività di pesca. Intere barriere coralline stanno morendo, eppure in quelle barriere non si pesca. Quindi riflettiamo, facciamo le cose giuste.

Catch-the-eye procedure

Željana Zovko (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, imam samo jedno pitanje za povjerenika. Ja danas idem za Split, u Dalmaciju. Dalmacija je mjesto gdje svi idu da se odmore, u turizam, očuvano kulturno i povijesno naslijeđe i uživaju u lijepoj gastronomiji koje su ulovili dalmatinski ribari. Dalmatinski ribari. Nema Dalmacije, nema Hrvatske bez ribara i nemojte raditi protiv ribara, a i kolega Matić, znači, nema te zlatne ribice koja će vam ispunjavati želje ako Hrvatska ne očuva svoje ribarstvo.

I pozivam povjerenika da dođu u Dalmaciju da razgovara s ribarima prije nego što bude radio neke planove koje će raditi samo u interesu trećih zemalja i uvoza i radit će protiv strateške autonomije Europske unije, sigurnosti hrane i očuvanja kulturne i povijesne baštine.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, cred că a rezultat din dezbaterea de astăzi importanța pescuitului și a calității apei oceanelor, mărilor sau a râurilor. Dar a mai rezultat un lucru, domnule comisar: că aici trebuie făcut un echilibru între situația pescarilor și biodiversitate, păstrarea apelor curate. Nu pescarii și nu din pescuit se distruge cel mai mult biodiversitatea, ci din deșeurile aruncate necontrolat în oceane și mări. Cred că sănătatea oceanelor este importantă, pentru că ține și de sănătatea oamenilor. Dar ce facem dacă nu veți ține cont de situația pescuitului? Sunt țări, regiuni în care oamenii trăiesc din pescuit.

Dacă nu veți ține cont de acest lucru, sigur vor fi oameni care nu-și mai pot câștiga veniturile cu care să trăiască. Și cred că este important să ținem cont că pește tot se va mânca și ce vom face? Vom importa din țări terțe necontrolat, unde nu țin cont de nicio biodiversitate și de nicio calitate a produsului. Așadar, țineți cont și de viața pescarilor atunci când reglementăm. Trebuie să reglementăm după ce discutăm cu toate părțile interesate.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, neste 9 de maio, a frota galega e europeia parou nos portos, pedindo que se demita. E sabe porquê? Porque perdeu a confiança e a legitimidade. Porque um comissário não pode demonizar determinadas artes de pesca sem ter os fundamentos científicos, ambientais, mas também sociais e económicos.

Estou de acordo com proteger os ecossistemas marinhos, as rias, os mares, mas também estou de acordo com proteger os marinheiros, os pescadores, as mariscadoras, as redeiras, quem vive do mar. Eu venho de um país que é a Galiza, uma nação pesqueira que vive da pesca e os primeiros interessados em ter ecossistemas limpos são os que vivem da pesca e da apanha de marisco.

Sem um ecossistema marinho em bom estado, não há pesca sustentável, nem do ponto de vista económico, nem do ponto de vista social. Por isso, é necessário integrar o conhecimento empírico dos marinheiros com o conhecimento dos científicos.

Não demonizem os pescadores, Senhor Comissário, não demonizem os pescadores. Integre-os na tomada de decisões comunitária da Política Comum das Pescas.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, it really is amazing that so few people know about the UN High Seas Treaty signed in March of this year, because it's actually extraordinarily important in terms of starting to deal with the protection of the world's ocean. The ocean absorbs our CO2 and all we give it back is pollution and destruction.

We know that the green transition has unleashed the quest for critical raw materials, but this cannot come at the cost of precious habitats, let alone that part of the planet which has the highest diversity of biodiversity on earth: the deep sea. The prospect of deep-sea mining really shows the extent to which profit-seekers are willing to consider the total annihilation of the planet just to boost their bank accounts. The new Treaty on the High Seas introduces an obligation for an environmental impact assessment for deep-sea activities, and that's grand, but it actually isn't enough. We need the EU to play a proactive role in ensuring that deep-sea mining does not come to fruition. We need an immediate moratorium on the International Seabed Authority and we need all governments to join the growing resistance to deep-sea mining to protect the ocean.

François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je suis frappé d'entendre depuis le début de ce débat des collègues qui ne cessent d'opposer la biodiversité et la pêche. Mais la pêche européenne, rappelons-le, c'est celle qui représente aujourd'hui le modèle le plus exigeant au monde du point de vue environnemental. Depuis plus de 40 ans maintenant, les pêcheurs, grâce à leurs efforts, ont permis de mettre tous les stocks de pêches, presque tous, au RMD. C'est à dire que la pêche européenne est durable sur presque toutes les espèces. Grâce à eux, et non pas contre, mais grâce à eux.

Et maintenant, c'est sur ce modèle de pêche que s'abattent toutes les contraintes et toutes les sanctions. La fermeture du Golfe de Gascogne en France, la fermeture de la pêche dans les aires marines protégées, ou bien encore le développement de l'éolien en mer au nom de l'environnement qui va lui aussi détruire la biodiversité.

Chers collègues, redisons-le avec force: tout ce que nous ferons pour fragiliser la pêche européenne, nous le ferons contre l'environnement et contre la biodiversité, seulement pour donner des parts de marché à toute la pêche que nous importons et qui, elle, venant de pays tiers, ne respecte absolument pas les règles que nous fixons à ceux qui produisent chez nous.

Dernier mot pour dire que je suis surpris, et tristement surpris, de voir certains collègues qui passent ici pour une minute de discours, que nous n'avons pas entendus sur la pêche depuis quatre ans. Pour nous, nous y travaillons tous les jours, et nous continuerons de travailler tous les jours pour défendre les pêcheurs européens parce que nous le leur devons.

Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io provo in un minuto a smontare le bugie della destra sul piano d'azione per la conservazione delle risorse marine. State mentendo ai pescatori! È un'operazione di distrazione dalle responsabilità dei governi nazionali, come quello italiano.

Questo piano chiede agli Stati membri il rispetto di direttive europee del 2020 e del 1992, quella sull'Habitat e quella sul quadro sull'ambiente marino. In Italia i pescatori già ora non pescano nelle aree marine protette e non fanno lo strascico, già ora non pescano nei siti Natura 2000 a protezione dei fondali.

Piuttosto, dov'è il piano di gestione degli spazi marittimi per fermare le nuove trivellazioni? Perché se è vero che non sono soltanto i pescatori i responsabili della difesa degli ecosistemi marini, è anche vero che dobbiamo quindi fermare le fonti fossili. Siate quindi coerenti!

Dove sono i bandi FEAMP per dare punti di sbarco legali e mercati ittici ai pescatori? Dove sono i soldi per ammodernare le loro imbarcazioni e per decarbonizzarle? Perché i soldi per i fermi pesca arrivano solo dopo due anni agli stessi pescatori?

Prendetevi le vostre responsabilità e dite la verità ai pescatori.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, first of all, thank you. Finally, we had a full morning of parliamentary debate to value the importance of the oceans for our life on this planet. And of course, your views and contributions in today's debate are extremely valuable.

We are now at a pivotal moment. Copernicus satellite imagery is a wake-up call that unfortunately confirms that the health of our oceans is degrading. But it's also a time when fishers are challenged. They are challenged by high fuel prices, lack of manpower, the lingering consequences of the pandemic, Brexit and climate change. And I understand the concern about yet another challenge for fishermen and women. However, failing to protect the marine environment, at the end of the day, will mean that fishermen and women will lose more and more of what constitutes the basis of their livelihood.

Hence, I want to point out the opportunities. Experience in the Mediterranean Sea shows that well managed marine protected areas can increase catches and can lower costs significantly. Scientific advice shows that big ecosystem gains can be achieved by the better management of fishing grounds and undistributed areas, and rebuilding the richness and abundance of species in ecosystems is good for fisheries, but it is also a good strategy to defend them against other pressures like ocean warming, acidification and oxygen depletion.

Of course, opportunities need investment, not only investment from the many available EU funds, but investment in time, in manpower, in new ideas, new equipment and new working practices. And those opportunities require the political will to push forward real and concrete action and positive change.

Let me reply very briefly to some of the comments raised today. I hear that there has been no impact assessment for the marine action plan. So first, the marine action plan is not a legislative proposal, but builds on already existing legislation that simply needs to be implemented – some of it for more than 30 years. Impact assessments will be needed for individual implementing measures as they are developed, and the impacts of action will depend on local choices. And I cannot repeat it often enough: we want choices and measures to be, first of all, local. We want the regional approach to work and that of course, means inclusion and dialogue.

I also hear that there were no consultations. We have consulted stakeholders for more than one year, from October 2021 to January 22. Consultations in all forms: conferences, meetings, online consultations, even I personally met the community multiple times and all views are reflected in our maritime action plan, those of scientists, of local and regional authorities, of environmental organisations and of the fishing industry. We have to bring all the perspectives together. It is not an easy task to find that balance, but this is what we try.

I have also heard that our political objectives expressed in this marine action plan are not based on science. Well, it's actually the basis. Science is the actual basis from which we start, and reference to it can be found throughout the action plan. And the science is compelling. Almost 80% of our seabed is currently damaged. And what we propose is to find solutions at regional level and to find them together. And no, we are not driven by environmental ideologies, but by pure science.

Finally, some of you asked why we do not address other pressures and other factors that impact the marine environment instead of focusing only on fisheries. Well, we do address also other factors and with the same determination and resolution. But this marine action plan is, first of all, about the fisheries and their future.

The advantage of being Commissioner for the environment is that I could present under my portfolio important legislative initiatives that will directly benefit also the seas and oceans such as on urban wastewater or on plastics. And our policies address equally sorts of pollution that end up in the ocean. And I hope that this House will support those initiatives and that will ensure a better well-being and the future of the fisheries too.

Honourable Members, we have used the last weeks and today's debate to provide clarifications, reply to your questions and we remain available to discuss and clarify further whenever needed, both orally and in writing. But I think we now need to pass from words to action and let Member States propose how we can achieve our common objective to better protect our marine environment while taking into consideration extremely important social and economic factors. Solutions need to come from the regional level, from the consultations and dialogue, including with all stakeholders, and I look forward to working very closely with Member States, with stakeholders and of course this Parliament.

President. – The joint debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 171)

Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR), na piśmie. – Polska jest jednym z tych krajów, które posiadają długą linię brzegową z Bałtykiem, i dla nas Bałtyk jest po prostu ważny. Nasze morze to skarb i ważny element lokalnej tożsamości. Ja jestem zwolennikiem rozwoju zrównoważonego, czyli z jednej strony wspierania ekologicznych rozwiązań, a przede wszystkim wsłuchania się w potrzeby naszych obywateli. Pragę przypomnieć, że w 2021 r. PE przyjął rezolucję zainicjowaną przez posłów EKR (A. Fotygę i K. Złotowskiego), w której wzywa się Unię Europejską do oczyszczenia Morza Bałtyckiego z wraków statków i broni chemicznej zatopionej po II wojnie światowej. Problemu nie można lekceważyć i ma on wymiar międzynarodowy, dlatego powinien być rozwiązany z udziałem UE. Decyzje o zatopieniu broni podejmowane były przez aliantów oraz wojska okupujące ten region, dlatego Polska i inne kraje Bałtyckie nie powinny zostać same z szukaniem rozwiązań tego problemu. Aby poprawić bioróżnorodność systemów wodnych w Polsce, podejmujemy wiele wysiłków, np. w drugim kwartale 2023 roku w Polsce zostaną przyjęte projekty rozporządzeń w sprawie przyjęcia planu zagospodarowania przestrzennego morskich wód wewnętrznych i akwenów portów morskich w Gdyni, Gdańsku i Władysławowie. Plan umożliwi koordynację działań przestrzennych na obszarach morskich w sposób zrównoważony. Bardzo mocno przyśpieszamy także z budową morskich farm wiatrowych i spodziewamy się, że już pod koniec 2025 r. pierwsze morskie farmy wiatrowe zaczną funkcjonować.

Raffaele Stancanelli (ECR), per iscritto. – Gli orientamenti contenuti nel piano d'azione per proteggere l'ecosistema marino presentati dalla Commissione destano non poca preoccupazione, con particolare riferimento alla pesca a strascico, che si vorrebbe vietare nel 30 % dei nostri mari.

I nostri pescatori hanno compiuto enormi sforzi per proteggere l'ambiente marino e recuperare gli stock ittici e stanno affrontando sfide estremamente difficili sotto tutti i punti di vista, con effetti socioeconomici e occupazionali rilevanti.

Ora, questi orientamenti fondati su un ambientalismo ideologico inadeguato sono l'ennesimo affronto nei confronti di un settore che rappresenta una delle eccellenze più importanti e espressione di tradizioni artigianali senza tempo.

La sostenibilità e la salvaguardia dell'ambiente marino non vanno ricercate attraverso l'imposizione di ulteriori divieti a determinate attività e attrezzi da pesca, ma con un diretto coinvolgimento di tutti gli attori tramite un approccio di condivisione che tenga in debita considerazione tutte le necessità e priorità delle parti in causa.

Faremo tutto il possibile affinché questi orientamenti rimangano tali e non si tramutino in atti legislativi vincolanti attraverso il nostro costante impegno al Parlamento europeo, per tutelare e preservare uno dei più importanti comparti economici della nostra nazione.

5.   Towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector (debate)

Presidente. – Segue-se o debate sobre a pergunta com pedido de resposta oral à Comissão sobre o tema ‘Rumo a um setor das algas da UE forte e sustentável’, apresentada por Pierre Karleskind, em nome da Comissão das Pescas (O-000015/2023 - B9-0018/23) (2023/2547(RSP)).

Predrag Fred Matić, u ime Odbora za ribarstvo. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, Europska unija je najveći svjetski uvoznik proizvoda od morskih algi. Stoga u Europi očito postoji velika potražnja za takvim proizvodima, a očekuje se da će se u predstojećim godinama potražnja za algama i proizvodima od njih povećati.

Vrijeme je da se u potpunosti iskoristi potencijal algi kao obnovljivog resursa u Europi. Zbog porasta svjetskog stanovništva, iscrpljivanja resursa, pritisaka na okoliš i klimatskih promjena potrebno je drukčije pristupiti hrani i gospodarskim sustavima.

Rat u Ukrajini je dodatno istaknuo koliko je ranjiva globalna opskrba hranom. Obustave izvoza žitarica iz Ukrajine i rast cijena energije potaknuli su inflaciju cijena hrane diljem svijeta, a zemlje u razvoju pogođene su puno snažnije od ostalih.

U Europi još uvijek nemamo konkretne mjere kojima bi iskoristili uporabu algi kao alternativnog izvora bjelančevina za održiv prehrambeni sustav i sigurnost opskrbe hranom, ali i za proizvodnju alternativnih goriva. Iskoristivost algi u Europi mogla bi postati predvodnica i izvor inspiracije za druge industrije da postanu inovativne i društveno uzorne, pri čemu će se otvoriti tisuće radnih mjesta, posebno u obalnim zajednicama.

Industrija morskih algi u Europi je u svojim počecima i trenutačno je više usmjerena na skupljanje morskih algi u divljini nego na uzgoj u objektima akvakulture kao primjerice u Aziji. Za sada je znano da imaju nutritivne, zdravstvene i biotehnološke koristi, no mogućnosti primjene morskih mikroorganizama su beskonačne jer mogu pružiti rješenja koja bi mogla biti od velikog socioekonomskog značaja.

Osim svakodnevne uporabe želim istaknuti važnost uzgoja mikro algi od kojih svi oblici života u vodi direktno ili indirektno dobivaju svoju hranu. Fitoplanktoni su osnovne energetske jedinice hranidbenog lanca, a istraživanja su pokazala da se svake godine redovito izgubi biomasa od 1 % ukupne svjetske količine.

To je vrlo zabrinjavajuće s obzirom da proizvode 50 % kisika i pohranjuju ugljikov dioksid iz atmosfere u moru. Prisutnost mikro algi izravan je pokazatelj zdravlja morskog ekosustava i buduće proizvodnje ribljeg fonda. Klimatske promjene i onečišćenje vode ne smiju biti uzrok gubitka planktona jer povećanje mase planktona izravno utječe na razine ribljeg fonda.

Znajući koliki utjecaj fitoplankton ima na cjelokupni ekosustav, posebna pažnja se treba posvetiti obnovi i zaštiti morskog okoliša i svim živim bićima unutar njega.

Već duži niz godina diskutiramo o gubitku ribljih fondova i proučavamo načine pomoću kojih možemo smanjiti utjecaj prekomjernog ribolova. Pritom ne dajemo pažnju akcijskim planovima pomoću kojih možemo povećati hranidbeni potencijal naših mora, a nemamo ni koordinirani plan zaštite ili obnove planktona.

Bitno je nastaviti provoditi znanstvena istraživanja. Tako ćemo utvrditi načine za smanjenje gubitka morskih staništa, ali i načine pomoću kojih možemo povećati hranidbeni potencijal unutar naših mora.

Sve to vodi prirodnom smanjenju ugljičnih emisija u zraku. Dok se suočavanje s najčešćim uzrocima gubitka planktona, prvenstveno klimatskim promjenama i onečišćenjem, pokazalo kao izazov, postoje određeni koraci koji mogu dovesti do povećanja rasta planktona.

Zaključno, željeli bismo čuti kako Komisija razmatra daljnje korake u implementiranju odgovarajućeg regulatornog okvira za sektor algi u Europskoj uniji i na koji način i putem kojeg budžeta će se razvoj tog sektora financirati. U slučaju da države članice ne poduzmu mjere za iskorištavanje potencijala sektora algi u Europskoj uniji, postoje li alternativne metode i stvarna politička volja da se ovaj značajan sektor počne iskorištavati u svom punom potencijalu?

Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the European Commission sees algae as a treasure of the seas and this is the reason why we have adopted on 15 November 2022 the Commission communication ‘towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector’. The EU algae initiative is supposed to unlock the great potential of algae production in the EU and therefore I welcome our exchange today and the draft resolution of the European Parliament on this crucial topic. I would like now to reply to your specific questions.

First of all regarding a future regulatory framework in the EU, let me highlight that the EU algae initiative calls on Member States' authorities to simplify national licensing procedures for algae cultivation. The Commission has already started its work to promote this needed simplification. Creating one-stop shops at Member State level is a simplification that the Commission welcomes and supports. The EU4Algae stakeholder platform is currently working on a licensing toolkit, which will compile general and country-specific information to guide future algae farmers through the licensing process.

Before the summer of 2023, the Commission will issue a guidance document on regulatory and administrative procedures in aquaculture as part of the implementation of the EU strategic guidelines for aquaculture. This document will aim at providing concrete recommendations to the EU Member States' competent authorities to reduce administrative burden and costs on aquaculture operators, including those involved in the farming of algae.

Regarding your second question on how the Commission will follow up if Member States do not do not implement the EU algae initiative. So it's important to emphasise that algae cultivation is part of aquaculture policy and it is consequently a competence of the EU Member States. So the Commission supports and coordinates Member States' efforts in this area via the open method of coordination. Furthermore, the Commission will prepare by 2027 a progress report of the implementation of the EU algae initiative, and this will be an important opportunity to take stock of the state of play and then of course consider further steps in case more needs to be done to fulfil potential for the sustainable development of the EU algae sector.

Regarding the question about funding, I can reassure you that the Commission has encouraged the Member States to include algae in their multiannual national strategic aquaculture plans and their programmes under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. In addition, the Commission will ensure that algae are satisfactorily covered in the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund measures directly managed by the Commission and in other EU funding instruments – those funding instruments comprise ‘EU Mission: Restore our Ocean and Waters’ under Horizon Europe, the Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking, the food strand under the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, BlueInvest and others.

Last year, the Commission set up the EU4Algae platform that now includes more than 700 stakeholders. And this platform will consolidate information on all available funding opportunities and future open calls for funding to facilitate the access to information and support for the algae sector.

Honourable Members, finally I would like to welcome the recently adopted Council conclusions on bioeconomy, which underline the potential of the EU blue bioeconomy, including the algae sector, for creating employment in coastal and rural areas, recovering European seas and freshwater resources and delivering low-carbon-footprint products to the European market.

It is in the interest of all of us to see the potential of the algae sector fully developed. So I look forward to our discussions today.

Gabriel Mato, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, yo creo que hoy nadie duda que los productos del mar son saludables y que no tenemos que perder de vista la necesidad de producir más alimentos a partir de los océanos, que, además, es un objetivo estratégico señalado por la Unión Europea.

Junto con la pesca, la acuicultura y otros sectores relacionados, el sector de las algas es de una importancia estratégica vital y contribuye, además, a la seguridad alimentaria. Además, la producción y la transformación de algas pueden servir a la fabricación de productos farmacéuticos, nutracéuticos, bioestimulantes, de origen biológico y cosméticos.

La Unión Europea es uno de los principales importadores mundiales de productos de algas marinas. El sector estima que la demanda europea de algas podría aumentar de unas 270 000 toneladas en 2019 a ocho millones en 2030 y alcanzar un valor de casi 9 000 millones de euros en este año. Por tanto, necesitamos impulsar el desarrollo sostenible de este joven y dinámico sector de la Unión Europea.

Y para que vea, señor comisario, que yo también sé reconocer los aciertos: la comunicación de la Comisión es muy bienvenida, especialmente en tanto en cuanto propone la simplificación administrativa, la mejora del marco de gobernanza y el entorno empresarial.

Para aprovechar el potencial del sector de las algas de la Unión Europea, el cultivo y la producción de algas regenerativas deben ampliarse en toda la Unión Europea y los mercados de algas deben desarrollarse. Como señala la propia Comisión, una próspera industria de algas de la Unión Europea podría convertirse en un buque insignia y una fuente de inspiración para que otras industrias se vuelvan más regenerativas, innovadoras y socialmente ejemplares, creando miles de puestos de trabajo en el proceso, especialmente en las comunidades costeras. Lo comparto plenamente, comisario.

Por supuesto, las algas y las microalgas pueden representar una importante fuente complementaria de proteínas a las que provienen del pescado, los crustáceos y otro tipo tradicional de mariscos, pero lo que está muy claro es que en ningún caso pueden sustituirlas, como algunos pretenden.

Isabel Carvalhais, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, um setor das algas forte e sustentável tem tudo para ser um ator-chave numa economia azul sustentável e circular.

A versatilidade e aplicabilidade das algas é enorme, como, aliás, já aqui foi dito. Vai desde as rações para animais à produção de energia, desde os cosméticos à produção de produtos farmacêuticos. E, ricas como são em proteínas, as algas podem ainda ser usadas como uma importante fonte complementar da alimentação humana.

No entanto, para atingir esse potencial, é necessário que a União Europeia implemente medidas que ajudem a fortalecer o setor, por exemplo: investir na pesquisa e desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico para melhorar o cultivo, o processamento e a extração de produtos à base de algas, procurando melhorar a sua qualidade e competitividade no mercado; criar um quadro regulador para o desenvolvimento de padrões de qualidade e segurança dos produtos à base de algas; direcionar medidas de apoio para a produção e comercialização desses produtos, aumentando, assim, a confiança dos investidores; estimular projetos de economia circular que integrem as algas em circuitos diversos, por exemplo, no tratamento de águas residuais ou na fertilização dos solos agrícolas.

O setor das algas não será certamente uma panaceia, mas será e é todo um mundo novo, com um enorme potencial ambiental e económico que a União Europeia tem de saber apoiar.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señor presidente, el cultivo de las algas, el desarrollo de una industria sostenible que aproveche las potencialidades de este recurso es una de las mayores esperanzas para responder a la creciente demanda de alimentos y revertir y corregir errores cometidos en el pasado y sobre suelo firme.

Las múltiples aplicaciones de un producto que regenera el medio marino e incrementa nuestras capacidades para secuestrar y neutralizar emisiones de carbono merecen un plan específico con su correspondiente despliegue financiero. Investigación, innovación y apoyo al emprendimiento tienen que impulsar lo que hoy ya sabemos, pero, además, desarrollar alternativas y productos para atender la creciente demanda mundial de alimentos en general y proteínas en particular.

Es un sector emergente que necesita más difusión y campañas de concienciación para generar el interés que cataliza la captación de talento e impulsa el conocimiento. Es un sector que será clave para la diversificación de la renta en las zonas costeras, que complemente la que procede de la pesca. Puede ser clave también para nuestras políticas de cooperación al desarrollo ofreciendo oportunidades, esperanza y alternativa a quienes, por no tenerla hoy, arriesgan la vida en peligrosos procesos migratorios.

Pero, además, tenemos hoy ya una gran oportunidad para mejorar nuestras normas sobre etiquetado que no protege hoy adecuadamente el pescado frente a producciones que se hacen pasar por tal. La experiencia demuestra que la legislación vigente no basta para conseguirlo. Y los productos hechos con algas no pueden seguir ese camino.

Un estudio de las Naciones Unidas sobre la revolución de las algas las señala como una gran esperanza para resetear el planeta. Mejoremos nuestras normas sobre etiquetado, para impedir que las algas se presenten como pescado. Pero, desde hoy, vayamos más allá. El branding de las algas tiene que ser alternativo, construirse desde el principio desde sus fortalezas. Productos sostenibles, sabrosos, nutritivos, sanos, naturales, pero otros, nuevos, diferentes. Salud para ti, para nosotros y para el planeta.

France Jamet, au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'inestimable valeur de l'or bleu n'est plus à démontrer. Le problème, c'est que nos politiques publiques peinent à l'entendre. J'en veux pour preuve le potentiel inexploité des algues en Europe aujourd'hui, qui ne représente qu'1 % de la production mondiale. Notre algoculture est au stade embryonnaire, alors que scientifiques, nutritionnistes et industriels s'accordent à vanter l'intérêt des plantes aquatiques dans de multiples domaines: chimie, antibiotique nouvelle génération, bioéthanol, complément alimentaire, cosmétique, compost, biogaz.

Les débouchés sont multiples, à condition d'en prendre la mesure et de savoir les exploiter et les rentabiliser. Même les phosphates et les nitrates dégagés par les algues vertes qui s'amoncellent sur notre littoral breton pourraient être exploités pour faire pousser des algues vertueuses sous contrôle, dont la plus-value pourrait contribuer notamment à dédommager nos communes impactées, et leur donner le pouvoir de revaloriser leur territoire.

Mais face aux gros opérateurs, aux lobbies de la chimie et des multinationales, je ne pense pas qu'il soit besoin de rapport ou d'expert missionné par la Commission. Nous devons dès maintenant faire preuve de courage, d'audace et de volonté politique. Et si nous n'innovons pas, si nous restons à la traîne en matière de recherche, cette richesse naturelle va nous échapper et notre production locale sera condamnée. Notre souveraineté alimentaire sera l'enjeu de demain, nous le savons tous. Nous devons défendre l'or bleu, nos mers, nos océans maintenant.

João Pimenta Lopes, em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, Portugal tem uma relação histórica com a recolha e utilização de algas nas regiões costeiras, desde a apanha do moliço à apanha do sargaço para utilização agrícola como adubo, que moldou comunidades costeiras na região centro e norte de Portugal. A utilização deste recurso foi sendo substituída pelo recurso a fertilizantes químicos, mas em detrimento do ambiente e das comunidades que desta atividade dependiam.

O interesse pelas algas reaparece para a indústria alimentar, medicinal ou para a produção de ficocoloides. Um outro redescobrimento que pode ter um interessante valor económico e que deve ser acompanhado da correspondente valorização laboral e social em favor das comunidades onde se insira e das estratégias de desenvolvimento nacionais.

Importa que os apoios que para aqui se mobilizem, as estratégias de implementação que se venham a implementar não sejam em detrimento dos apoios à pesca, em particular à pesca de pequena escala, ou da usurpação ou competição com áreas específicas de pescaria.

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, el sector europeo de producción de algas tiene un gran potencial. Resulta paradójico que, siendo Europa un continente tan volcado al mar, seamos a la vez uno de los mayores importadores de algas marinas del mundo. En mi tierra, en Galicia, sé que varias empresas y también científicos de la Universidad de Vigo están trabajando en la valorización de diferentes especies de algas para la obtención de cosméticos y biocombustibles. Además, ya existen en Galicia empresas de cultivo de algas para consumo humano.

No puedo, por tanto, más que acoger con satisfacción esta iniciativa de la Comisión Europea. En particular, celebro que aborde un aspecto que me parece fundamental: la excesiva duración y complejidad de los procedimientos de autorización. Acierta mucho la Comisión al decir que el sector de las algas precisa unos procedimientos simplificados y, también, al pedir a los Estados miembros que simplifiquen los procedimientos de concesión de licencias.

El cultivo de algas se enfrenta, por tanto, en buena medida, a los mismos problemas que el sector europeo de la acuicultura, cuyo crecimiento lamentablemente sigue estancado debido a las trabas burocráticas. Evitemos ahora caer en el mismo error con las algas.

Carmen Avram (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, salut comunicarea privind sectorul algelor și calendarul propus de Comisie pentru dezvoltarea lui. Poate ar fi trebuit să avem această dezbatere cu mulți ani în urmă, pentru ca azi să vedem deja rezultatele concrete. Cu un război la granița UE, cu un pericol real la adresa securității alimentare și în plină cursă pentru decarbonizare, exploatarea algelor a devenit o necesitate reală și imediată, pentru că ea nu e doar o oportunitate pentru sectorul de pescuit și acvacultură: acest nou business european va oferi o sursă de proteină pentru hrana animalelor, o resursă valoroasă pentru producerea biocombustibilului și un mod de a reduce presiunea de pe terenul agricol.

Pentru țara mea înseamnă și posibilitatea de a exploata sustenabil cele 10 mii de tone de alge care sufocă anual litoralul Mării Negre. Solicit, deci, Comisiei Europene ca, pe lângă stimularea inovării și finanțarea unor proiecte-pilot, să convingă statele membre să pregătească legislația și să simplifice birocrația pentru a demara procesul de producție. Schimbările pe care le traversăm nu ne permit nicio zi de întârziere.

Catch-the-eye procedure

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, sigur, algele, s-a demonstrat științific, sunt utilizate și în medicină, și în cosmetică și da, și alternativ, în alimentație. Cred că este nevoie de o suplimentare a fondurilor pentru cercetare, dar și de o bună comunicare către cetățeni, pentru că știm ce s-a întâmplat atunci când s-a discutat și s-a dezbătut și a fost și o rezoluție pe proteină alternativă din insecte, gândaci, greieri și așa mai departe. Noi nu putem dicta de la Bruxelles sau de la Strasbourg ce să mănânce cetățenii.

Fiecare țară are, sigur, o gamă de alimente tradiționale, dar se pot oferi informații și atunci creșterea algelor cu o utilizare atât de largă se va face în funcție de cererea de pe piață. Numai că trebuie reglementat, trebuie certificat, trebuie să avem standarde, pentru că acum, sigur, ne bazăm pe importuri din țări terțe. De aceea, cred, domnule comisar, că este foarte important cum le comunicăm cetățenilor, să nu înțeleagă din nou că noi îi obligăm să mănânce alge ca alternativă la proteina animală.

Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, avec cette résolution, le Parlement envoie un signal fort en faveur de la culture des algues en Europe. Son développement présente de nombreux intérêts. Les algues sont une alternative aux farines de poissons utilisées en aquaculture et qui entraînent le pillage des mers en Afrique de l'Ouest. Mais les algues sont aussi intéressantes pour la consommation humaine, un aliment nutritif et durable.

La culture de macro-algues séquestre du carbone et contribue à la lutte contre le changement climatique. Elle peut aussi contribuer à la restauration des écosystèmes marins. La culture d'algues peut permettre à certains pêcheurs de se diversifier au niveau de leur activité. Mais il faudra veiller à ce que la culture d'algues reste durable. Éviter la collecte d'algues via des techniques destructrices comme les dragues et privilégier les méthodes moins impactantes. Cultiver des espèces locales, éviter des monocultures d'algues qui présenteraient des risques sanitaires. Développons donc la culture d'algues, mais évitons de répéter les dérives de l'aquaculture intensive.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, a Galiza tem uma relação histórica também com a apanha de algas, como o sargaço. O recurso natural das algas dá trabalho, apanha-se de pé, com as mãos. É um recurso natural com alto valor nutritivo em proteínas, mas também bom para a saúde, para a cosmética, para os biocombustíveis.

Na Galiza, temos várias empresas inovadoras de produção de algas e, ademais, nesse sentido – e damos as boas-vindas a este plano europeu –, precisamos também de apoio financeiro, porque, na Galiza, dão-se as condições ótimas para o desenvolvimento da produção de algas, mas este tem de ser acompanhado de um plano biológico de saneamento das águas e com uma política comercial e de etiquetagem clara. Porque não serve a produção da aquicultura intensiva, mas sim uma produção de algas extensiva e respeitando sempre o meio natural.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate today and thank you for your support and your contributions and feedbacks. They are essential in shaping the EU algae initiative towards a more sustainable future, and I trust that we will ensure a fruitful cooperation between our two institutions and work together towards this algae revolution to make sure that we make the best of their potential for Europe.

Before closing, I would like to mention the first EU algae awareness summit in Paris on 5-7 October this year. This event will be organised by the Commission jointly with the French authorities and the United Nations Global Compact and we want to inspire national authorities for change and raise public awareness by sharing best practices, success stories and inviting people to test algae products.

Presidente. – Comunico que recebi uma proposta de resolução (*1) om base no artigo 136.o, n.o 5, do Regimento, para encerrar o debate.

O debate está encerrado.

A votação realizar-se-á hoje.

(A sessão é suspensa às 11h51)

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA METSOLA

President

6.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12.02)

President. – Dear colleagues, just before the vote I understand that Ms García Pérez would like to make a brief point.

Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). – Señora presidenta, hoy es la última sesión plenaria y el último día de votación para un compañero del Grupo S&D, nuestro compañero Eric Andrieu, diputado que lleva trabajando en esta Cámara desde 2012.

(Aplausos)

Quienes hemos tenido la suerte de trabajar con él, de conocerle y, además, de compartir amistad somos conscientes de la pérdida que tiene hoy este Parlamento.

Así pues, quiero desearle lo mejor a nuestro compañero. Aquí tienes una gran familia, que es la familia europea, que va a estar siempre muy agradecida por todo tu trabajo, Eric. ¡Muchísimas gracias!

La Présidente. – Merci Eric, bonne chance!

Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, hier fut un jour sombre pour la République française et pour tous les humanistes européens. Hier, le maire de Saint-Brevin-les-Pins, Yannick Morez, a été acculé à la démission après des mois de menaces de mort contre lui et sa famille. Des mois de harcèlement par l'extrême droite. Après avoir vu sa voiture et sa maison brûler en pleine nuit alors qu'il dormait avec sa femme.

Quel est le crime commis par Yannick Morez aux yeux des agents de la haine et du chaos? Son seul crime est d'avoir accepté l'établissement d'un centre d'accueil dans sa commune pour demandeurs d'asile. D'avoir respecté notre droit et nos principes. Hier, hier, la haine a gagné en France et en Europe. Alors il est temps aujourd'hui de rappeler que nous sommes attachés au droit et aux principes humanistes qui fondent la construction européenne. Il est temps de se lever, de se lever en l'honneur de Yannick Morez, de se lever pour le droit et de montrer que la haine ne gagnera pas en Europe!

7.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details concerning the vote: see minutes)

7.1.   Media freedom and freedom of expression in Algeria, the case of journalist Ihsane El-Kadi (RC-B9-0242/2023, B9-0239/2023, B9-0242/2023, B9-0243/2023, B9-0244/2023, B9-0245/2023, B9-0248/2023) (vote)

7.2.   Belarus: the inhumane treatment and hospitalisation of prominent opposition leader Viktar Babaryka (RC-B9-0251/2023, B9-0250/2023, B9-0251/2023, B9-0252/2023, B9-0253/2023, B9-0254/2023, B9-0255/2023) (vote)

7.3.   Myanmar, notably the dissolution of democratic political parties (RC-B9-0240/2023, B9-0240/2023, B9-0241/2023, B9-0246/2023, B9-0247/2023, B9-0249/2023) (vote)

7.4.   Empowering consumers for the green transition (A9-0099/2023 - Biljana Borzan) (vote)

— After the vote on the Commission proposal:

Biljana Borzan, rapporteur. – Madam President, in accordance with the Rule 59, I would like to request that the matter be referred back to committee for interinstitutional negotiations.

(Parliament approved the request for referral back to committee)

7.5.   Objection pursuant to Rule 112 (2) and (3): Genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 x 3006-210-23 (B9-0232/2023) (vote)

7.6.   Roadmap on a Social Europe: two years after Porto (B9-0235/2023, B9-0236/2023) (vote)

— After the vote:

President. – A very good result, congratulations.

7.7.   Adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (B9-0234/2023) (vote)

7.8.   Towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector (B9-0233/2023) (vote)

President. – That concludes the vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 12.22)

PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: DITA CHARANZOVÁ

místopředsedkyně

8.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 15.00)

9.   Composition of committees and delegations

President. – The EPP and ID Groups have notified the President of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees and delegations. These decisions will be set out in the minutes of today's sitting and take effect on the date of this announcement.

10.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

President. – The minutes of yesterday's sitting and the texts adopted are available.

Are there any comments?

As that is not the case, the minutes are approved.

11.   Prohibiting chick and duckling killing in EU law (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on prohibiting chick and duckling killing in EU law tabled by Sirpa Pietikäinen, Günther Sidl, Thomas Waitz, Andreas Schieder, Pascal Arimont, Emil Radev, Ivan Vilibor Sinčić, Michaela Šojdrová, Markéta Gregorová, Margrete Auken, Marcel Kolaja, Niels Fuglsang, Kira Marie Peter-Hansen, Henna Virkkunen, Heidi Hautala, Raphaël Glucksmann, Benoît Biteau, Mounir Satouri, Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, Manon Aubry, Aurélia Beigneux, Sylvie Guillaume, Pierre Larrouturou, Pascal Durand, Nora Mebarek, Marina Mesure, Marie Toussaint, Eric Andrieu, Damien Carême, Anne-Sophie Pelletier, Tiemo Wölken, Martin Buschmann, Marion Walsmann, Maria Noichl, Manuela Ripa, Stelios Kouloglou, Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, Mick Wallace, Grace O'Sullivan, Frances Fitzgerald, Clare Daly, Ciarán Cuffe, Mario Furore, Laura Ferrara, Anna Bonfrisco, Petras Auštrevičius, Tilly Metz, Robert Biedroń, Sylwia Spurek, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Andrzej Halicki, Francisco Guerreiro, Isabel Carvalhais, Dacian Cioloș , Martin Hojsík, Michal Wiezik, Malin Björk, Helmut Geuking, Alviina Alametsä, Anja Hazekamp, Matjaž Nemec (O-000014/2023 – B9-0017/23) (2023/2692(RSP)).

Sirpa Pietikäinen, author. – Madam President, Commissioner, European Union treaties state that animals are ‘sentient beings’ and the duty of the European Union is to look after their welfare and to protect them. This obligation and the acknowledgment of ‘sentient beings’ are the guidelines we should have and bear in mind when we are treating animals as production animals for food products.

We know that billions of male chickens and ducklings are being inhumanely slaughtered after birth every year throughout the EU by smashing them, by gasification or other equally brutal methodologies which we certainly wouldn't approve for pigs or cows or, for that matter, cats or dogs if they happened to be the wrong sex.

This is wrong. This is unethical. And this is a huge waste of protein. With quite marginal extra cost, we could already scan through the eggs and decide to consume the eggs of male chickens instead of destroying chicklets just after they are born. Or we could raise them and use them as an animal protein, being young chicklets. There is no reason why we would not stop this inhumane process.

Madam President, this isn't the only question. After we solve this one, we need to go back to the goats where almost the same procedure is in place. I hope that the Commission gives a due answer to this question: in what timeframe are you going to prohibit chick and duckling killing in the EU?

Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the systematic killing of millions of day-old chickens and day-old ducklings raises major ethical concerns for many people. These concerns are clearly shared by many of you in this Chamber.

Starting with the killing of day-old chicks, it is important to feed into our discussion the fact that Germany and France have already banned this practice, with other Member States examining the issue. The Commission is also looking at the option of phasing it out as part of our ongoing impact assessment for the revision of the EU's animal welfare legislation, an assessment which will also consider the challenging economic context, which for this particular sector chiefly means avoiding market distortion.

However, and even if this practice takes place under strict rules, we should ask ourselves whether purely economic reasons can justify such large scale, systematic killings. The experience in Germany and France can help us to understand the various aspects of such a ban, as well as the alternatives available.

The situation regarding the practice of killing female ducklings in the foie gras sector is rather different. This is so as it is limited to a few Member States that produce foie gras, including France, Hungary and Bulgaria, and none of these countries have banned or planned to ban it. The Commission therefore has no evidence of market distortion in this area that would justify EU intervention.

Furthermore, as you are aware, Treaty provisions on animal welfare refer to respecting national provisions and customs relating to cultural traditions and regional heritage. For these reasons, the Commission has not included a ban on killing female ducklings among its options for revising the EU's animal welfare legislation.

Honourable Members, the global economic context has changed dramatically. Energy prices have soared and the prices of many commodities and goods, including food, have risen as well. We would therefore not be doing our duty to citizens if the impact assessment failed to consider this new economic context. As the Commission has said before, we are committed to proposing ambitious legislation that matches the latest science with social and economic realities.

Our discussions should hopefully provide the sector with the incentive to innovate, to embrace more ethical and sustainable production systems, and to reorient certain breeding and selection practices so that they benefit from new technologies.

At the same time, however, methods need to be reliable, cheap and passed to cope with a number of acts concerned. More research and development is therefore needed. Research into alternatives is ongoing and is making major progress. Of course, alternatives need to be compatible with sustainable production systems while fully considering the potential economic dimension. For example, some of the methods to detect the sex of embryos are now commercialised in the EU. Developing early sexing could reduce energy costs for hatching. This innovation could be a valuable asset that the rest of the world could be interested in buying.

Having said this, with the knowledge that we have at the present, it is very difficult to accurately predict when the industry could stop the killing of male chicks by using methods which are under development. Any ban would therefore require a transition period so that it is soundly developed and properly implemented.

Honourable Members, to conclude, let me assure you that the Commission will assess the short term and long-term challenges alike in order to be able to present you with a balanced and at the same time sustainable findings. I look forward for your views.

Seán Kelly, on behalf of the PPE Group. – A Uachtaráin, Commissioner Valdis, I must say, as a child, one of the great memories I have is my mother sending me on missions to neighbouring farms to get hatching hens, and getting a hatching hen and then watching the eggs hatch. And the absolute delight of seeing little chickens coming out of the hatched eggs and all cared for under the mother hen's wings and growing into adulthood.

This is being denied by this horrible, barbaric practice where 300 million day-old male chicks are killed every year in the EU and 6.5 billion worldwide. And millions of female ducks are killed in the production of foie gras, as it's called, a notoriously brutal part of the animal source food industry.

Selective breeding of egg-laying hens has increased egg productivity. However, the selection has also meant that male chicks no longer develop enough muscle to be used for meat. And although they are sentient creatures, as Sirpa pointed out, these young animals are therefore considered worthless. Their deaths often caused immense suffering, including via maceration, electrocution and asphyxiation.

This almost secretive practice of gassing and grinding chicks and ducklings must be prohibited under EU law, as the practice causes substantial suffering and also goes against Article 13 of the TFEU, which recognises animals as sentient beings. The EU must follow the positive steps taken by France, Germany, Austria and Italy in banning the cruel practice of killing chicks and ducklings. Our goal should be to obtain a total ban on the killing of chicks and ducklings in Europe. And this is in line with what the Commission found out when they did a public consultation. Of the 60 000 who responded, 94% said they want this practice to end and 82% said farm animals generally should be better protected.

Also, of course, there is now a technology available, which means that this practice is not necessary. In in-vitro, sexing can determine the sex of an egg prior to hatching. So this grinding and gassing has to stop. As Sirpa said, it's an ethical issue, but I want to see young people, like myself many years ago, being able to joyfully watch young eggs being hatched, little chickens coming out and growing to maturity.

Carmen Avram, în numele grupului S&D. – Doamna președintă, domnule vicepreședinte, pentru mine este uluitor că, în timp ce omenirea, în general, și europenii, în special, au ajuns la un nivel atât de înalt de dezvoltare și de sofisticare în tot ceea ce privește viața, noi aici abia acum dezbatem problema barbarismului care stă la baza uciderii puilor de o zi din crescătorii. Noi, care vorbim despre drepturi și ființe sentiente și creăm legislații tot mai dure pentru bunăstarea animalelor, nu am găsit calea de a opri aceste practici crude care duc la suferință pentru păsări și la pierderi financiare pentru producători.

Această temă nici măcar nu ar trebui să fie despre legislație. Este pur și simplu o problemă de ordin moral și de adaptare la noile realități. Este de neconceput să discutăm despre tehnici de producere a cărnii sintetice sau de ameliorare a plantelor, dar să neglijăm constant acest aspect al sacrificiului inutil și barbar al puilor de o zi.

Trebuie să fie clar: crescătorii europeni de păsări sunt ultimii care și-ar dori această suferință în businessul lor. Ei caută în permanență soluții, dar nu le găsesc și atunci au nevoie de ajutor de la Comisia Europeană pentru a putea accede la cele mai noi tehnologii, astfel încât să nu mai ajungă în situația de a ucide anual sute de milioane de puiuți.

Studiul metodelor alternative de determinare a sexului in ovo trebuie întețit și finanțat corespunzător din bani europeni. Implementarea pe scară largă a acestei tehnologii are și ea nevoie de subvenționare adecvată măcar câțiva ani. Trebuie creat un grup de dialog orizontal și transsectorial pentru găsirea unor piețe de desfacere a ouălor înainte, deci, ca puii să iasă. Eventual industria producătoare de vaccinuri le-ar putea folosi în scopuri nobile.

Mai este nevoie de ceva, domnule vicepreședinte, și anume de asumare politică, dacă vrem cu adevărat să rezolvăm această problemă. Buzunarul politicii agricole comune nu trebuie să fie singura soluție, iar finanțarea trebuie anunțată înaintea măsurilor legislative pentru predictibilitate. Altfel, riscăm să lovim iar un sector care oricum se confruntă cu mari dificultăți din pricina focarelor de gripă aviară și a cantităților mari de carne importate din țări terțe.

Michal Wiezik, za skupinu Renew. – Pani predsedajúca, keď som prvýkrát videl dokument o zabíjaní jednodňových kuriatok, zostal som otrasený. Prirodzená tendencia chrániť drobné kuriatko bola konfrontovaná s drsnou realitou toho, ako ten malý pípajúci vtáčik bol hodený do mlynčeka a v zlomku sekundy rozdrtený. Jeden samček za druhým, polovica znášky len preto, že sa nehodili do chovu.

Dodnes si pamätám slová mojej ženy. Keby ich aspoň pobozkali pred tým, ako ich tam hodia. Mala slzy na krajíčku. A od toho momentu som presvedčený, že krutosť a utrpenie tejto praxe je niečo, s čím sa nikdy nevyrovnám.

Nemusíme pri tom hovoriť len o utrpení kuriatok. Tie pravdepodobne si ani neuvedomia, keď sa stanú rozsekané na kúsky. Nevedia, čo sa deje. Pri tomto akte ničenia vyliahnutého života ale trpia aj ľudia. Tí, ktorí sú účastní toho aktu. Aj tí, ktorí sú jeho svedkami. Pri tom pohľade trpí duša a do očí sa tlačia slzy. Niet divu, že ho pred verejnosťou skrývame. To ale problém nerieši, práve naopak, prehlbuje ho.

Good things happen, eventually. In 2021, both Germany and France passed a law on banning the practice of culling of male chicks from 2022. In Austria, killing of male chicks without a specific reason was recently banned. Luxembourg banned systematic destruction of chicks. In Italy the ban is expected to apply in 2026. France and Germany submitted a document to other agriculture ministers calling for the EU-wide chick-culling ban and we are very grateful for the response of the Commission, and Commissioner Kyriakides in particular, who is ready to propose to phase out this practice. This will most probably happen within the animal welfare legislation revision to be tabled this year.

Talking about improvements, the alternatives to chick-culling need to be stressed. First of all, we have the alternative to actually stop regarding male chicks a mere waste of the meat and industry. Let us exploit possibilities for raising males or switch to dual-purpose breeds that produce both meat and eggs. Yes, they all need adjustments and compensations. That is why sexing technologies to determine gender before eggs hatching represent the best workable solution. There is a number of safe methods incorporating biomarker method, PCR technology, MRI spectroscopy: these methods can distinguish between female and male hatching eggs from the ninth day of incubation. Their accuracy is way above 98% and they can process tens of thousands of eggs per hour.

Some new problems, however, have arisen which need to be tackled because the ban on chick-culling is not yet EU-wide. Hatcheries in countries where killing male chicks is forbidden started to export day-old chicks to kill them in neighbouring countries. It is not acceptable to add additional suffering by transportation to the killing itself to the day-old chicks. The EP must call on the Commission to propose an EU-wide ban with a minimal transition period in order to stop current disadvantage met by countries which decided to ban this cruelty.

The case of chicks being exported to be killed must warn us about the importance to have mirror clauses. Should an EU-wide ban be adopted it should include the prohibition of export of live chicks meant for elimination and a prohibition to import eggs or hens which have not been sexed. I firmly believe we have to broaden the ban also on one-day-old ducklings which suffer the same way due to the production of foie gras. If we are to reduce suffering both of animals and those who witness this cruel practice, we have no more time to waste. It is normal to protect a freshly hatched bird. It is normal to be humane. Let us act now. All we need is love and compassion.

Tilly Metz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, first of all, I am happy that we speak about animal welfare, but I would be also happy if we do not always do it in the Thursday afternoon when nobody is there to listen anymore at all. But I will switch to German now.

Das Töten von Eintagsküken ist eine inhumane Praxis, die immenses Leid verursacht und gegen die im EU-Recht verankerten Grundgesetze des Tierschutzes verstößt. Ich halte es für inakzeptabel, dass die Industrie bis heute an dieser grausamen Praxis festhält und dass die aktuellen EU-Tierschutznormen das Schreddern und das Vergasen überhaupt noch zulassen. Auch EFSA hat sich hierzu bereits 2019 klar ausgedrückt: Stoppt das Schreddern! Denn es gibt bereits, und sie wurden erwähnt, Technologien zur Geschlechtsbestimmung in ovo, die diese grausame Praxis völlig unnötig machen.

Ich möchte der Kommission hier mit dem Blick auf die anstehende Überarbeitung der EU-Tierschutzstandards eine ganz einfache Frage stellen. Es wurde bereits von Ihnen im Oktober 2022 angesprochen: Werden Sie wirklich ein explizites EU-weites Verbot der Tötung von Eintagsküken vorschlagen? Angesichts der überwältigenden Forderungen der europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger nach konsequentem Tierschutz darf die Antwort hier nur Ja sein, und das sofort – nicht noch mit langen Transitions- und Übergangsphasen.

Anna Zalewska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Żyjemy w czasach rosnącej empatii i świadomości tego, w jaki sposób hodujemy zwierzęta, w jaki sposób zajmujemy się zwierzętami. Dlatego każda inicjatywa społeczna, która dostrzega problem, chce go rozstrzygnąć, powinna być witana jako dobra, jako pretekst do dyskusji.

Natomiast musimy być odpowiedzialni. Musimy zbadać każdy przypadek. Musimy przeanalizować obowiązujące przepisy, jak również to, w jaki sposób wesprzeć przedsiębiorców, by ich hodowla, by ich produkcja była akceptowalna społecznie – jeżeli chodzi z jednej strony o dobrostan zwierząt, a z drugiej strony o to, w jaki sposób będą ponosić koszty lub też koszty przerzucać na konsumentów.

Dlatego cieszę się z takiego wyważonego stanowiska pana komisarza, który mówi o przeglądzie, o analizie, ale podkreśla też, w jakich czasach żyjemy: w czasach rosnących kosztów żywności, rosnących kosztów energii (tak naprawdę nie jesteśmy w stanie ocenić, kiedy one się skończą), w czasie wojny.

Padło tu sformułowanie, że Niemcy i Francja mają metody, mają sposoby, że już wprowadzają ten zakaz. Może rzeczywiście warto porozmawiać o metodach, porozmawiać o tym, w jaki sposób Niemcy i Francuzi wdrażają innowacje, które służą hodowli. Dlatego że chciałabym, żebyśmy nie zostali tutaj z takim wrażeniem, że oto Niemcy i Francuzi wymyślili, mają swój pomysł i chcą na Europejczykach zarobić.

Joachim Kuhs, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, werte Kollegen! Heute, am Donnerstagnachmittag, besprechen wir mal wieder mit den bekannten Gesichtern ein Thema, bei dem wir uns ziemlich einig sind, denn keiner von uns findet das Töten von Eintagsküken schön oder sinnvoll. Aber bei aller Harmonie am Donnerstagnachmittag erlauben Sie mir bitte, Frau Präsidentin, dass ich kurz eine Anmerkung zu diesen Debatten am Donnerstagnachmittag mache: Ich fände es ehrlicher, wenn wir uns auch an diesem Tag mit den noch wichtigeren Themen befassen, nämlich z. B. dem millionenfachen Töten von ungeborenem menschlichen Leben im Mutterleib. Dass wir es nicht schaffen, darüber auch am Donnerstagnachmittag eine ernsthafte Debatte zu führen, das ist in meinen Augen ein Armutszeugnis für dieses Haus, das ist meines Erachtens eine Schande.

Doch zurück zum heutigen Thema. Ja, das Töten von Eintagsküken ist eine grausame Praxis. Und wenn meine Enkelkinder mit Hühner- oder Entenküken spielen, dann erscheint der maschinelle Tod für diese kleinen, fluffigen Geschöpfe noch grausamer, geradezu unmenschlich zu sein. Wir alle wünschen und fordern ein schnelles Ende dieser Praxis.

Wenn jedoch von interessierten Gruppen dieses Thema mit fadenscheinigen Gründen des Klimaschutzes missbraucht wird, um ein Verbot des gesamten Geflügelsektors zu fordern, dann ist das einfach nur heuchlerisch und komplett daneben. Wussten Sie eigentlich, dass die CO2-Emissionen des Geflügelsektors im Vergleich zu den negativen Emissionen beim massiven Abholzen von Wäldern zur Herstellung von Eiweiß aus Soja verblassen? Und sind Sie sich bewusst, dass ein Verbot des Geflügelsektors in Europa das Leiden dieser Tiere nur verschlimmern würde, da dann Geflügelprodukte aus Ländern wie Thailand, Vietnam, China oder Indien importiert würden, also aus Ländern, in denen es im Vergleich zu Deutschland oder Belgien oder Frankreich, oder nennen Sie irgendein Land, überhaupt keine Tierschutzstandards gibt?

Wir müssen uns die Fakten genau ansehen, und wir müssen Entscheidungen treffen, die auf Vernunft und Logik basieren. Ja, das industrielle Töten von Eintagsküken muss beendet werden, da sind wir uns alle einig. Aber ein Verbot des Geflügelsektors wäre sicher keine Lösung.

Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Fru formand! Kommissær! Ærede kolleger! Jeg har skrevet to taler i dag. De ligner hinanden. På den ene er der et par stavefejl og måske et par passager, der ikke egner sig til denne sal, så derfor krøller jeg den sammen og smider den ud. Vi ville ikke gøre det samme med dyr, vel? Tænk, hvis vi gjorde det. Det vil være barbarisk, at vi, krøllede dyr sammen, slog dem ihjel, fordi at vi synes, de havde en fejl på den ene eller den anden måde. Men kære venner, det er lige præcis det, vi gør, og det er forfærdeligt at tænke på. Der er 330 millioner hanekyllinger i EU hvert år, som bliver slået ihjel. Enten ved at vi gasser dem, eller ved at vi kommer dem i en kødknusermaskine, fordi de har den fejl, at de har det forkerte køn. De er hankyllinger, og dem kan vi så ikke bruge til noget. Det er barbarisk. Helt ærlig. Hvad siger det om os? Hvad siger det om vores værdier? Hvad siger det om vores etiske kompas? Ikke noget særlig godt for mig at se, og derfor bør det stoppe. Derfor bør vi have et forbud mod dette på europæisk niveau.

Kommissæren nævnte to grunde til, at man skulle overveje at lade være med at lave sådan et forbud. Det ene var kulturelle begrundelser. Man skulle respektere medlemslandenes kultur. Det kan jeg ikke helt se nogen mening i. Altså, hvad er det for en kultur, der siger, at man skal lave en masse aflivning af hanekyllinger hvert år? Det er ikke en kultur, jeg kan støtte op om i hvert fald. Den anden var økonomiske grunde. Og der er det sådan, at det er jo absurd, at faktisk så vil dette formentlig ikke koste os noget. I hvert fald ikke noget sådan særlig betydeligt. Der er metoder i dag, hvorpå man kan afgøre, om kyllingen en er af han- eller hunkøn, inden man udklækker kyllingen, så lad os da bruge de metoder. Det er ikke nødvendigvis dyrere, men det ville gøre, at vi undgik at lave denne her barbariske massakre på hanekyllingerne. Så lad os tage de metoder i brug, og derfor vil jeg sige: Kommissær, vil du ikke give mig en god grund til, at vi ikke skal forbyde masseaflivningen af nyudklækkede hanekyllinger i Europa? Jeg kan ikke se nogen grund, og det tyder heller ikke på, at du kan. Så derfor lad os få det forbud, og lad os få det nu!

Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, 300 millions. 300 millions, c'est le nombre de poussins mâles qui sont tués chaque année dans l'Union européenne, quelques minutes après avoir éclos. Dans les couvoirs spécialisés dans la fourniture de poules pondeuses, les poussins mâles n'ont aucune valeur et finissent le plus souvent broyés, déchiquetés.

Pourtant, des alternatives comme le sexage dans l'œuf permettent d'identifier le sexe d'un poussin une semaine avant l'éclosion. Plusieurs pays, comme la France ou l'Allemagne, ont déjà légiféré pour interdire le broyage des poussins. Il est temps d'interdire cette pratique partout en Europe.

Mais pourquoi ce qui s'appliquerait aux poussins ne pourrait-il pas s'appliquer aux canetons? Les producteurs de foie gras n'élèvent que des canards mâles et chaque année, des millions de canetons femelles sont broyés dès la naissance, alors que les mêmes techniques de sexage dans l'œuf existent. Rien ne peut justifier une différence de traitement entre poussins mâles et canetons femelles. La Commission européenne doit interdire le broyage systématique des deux. Les citoyens et les citoyennes comptent sur vous.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, уважаеми колеги, чудя се какво ли си мислят хората в галерията горе, когато виждат и гледат за какво отиват техните данъци и какви дебати финансират със своите данъци в Европейския парламент?

Не че имам нещо против екзотични теми като тези, все пак е четвъртък и в устните въпроси всеки може да задава теми, които, меко казано, според мен са странни за тази зала, но да речем, че както се казва, зададен въпрос, отговаря му се.

Друг е въпросът защо хора, които толкова много се грижат за малките пиленца, гъсенца, патенца, пчелички и други такива, когато стане дума за човешки права, в предишни дни избягват темата и се скатават и се опитват да игнорират, и се опитват да я избегнат, като например много важната тема за нарушаването на човешките права в Република Северна Македония. Но да речем, че това е друга тема.

Друг ми е въпросът към вас, уважаеми вносители и хора, които занимавате с този въпрос за пиленцата, патенца, гъсенцата и както там им казвате. Колко ще струва този дебат на индустрията и на хората, които се занимават с производството на птици? Защото всички ваши такива, много загрижени повдигания на теми водят обикновено до регулации, до администрация, до бюрокрация, до забрани и до унищожаване на някакъв клон от европейските индустрии, за да може да отворите вратите за внос от Китай, от трети държави и от някъде другаде. Това е резултат обикновено от вашите регулации. Грижата за патенцата, за пиленцата ще доведе до там да се внасят продукти от чужди държави, а тези, които ги произвеждат в рамките на европейските държави, да фалират и да губят своята работа. До това водят обикновено вашите подобни усилия. И аз се чудя дали това е въпрос на наивност или е нещо съвсем различно и започвам да се убеждавам, че не става дума за наивност.

(Ораторът приема да отговори на въпрос по процедурата ‘синя карта’)

Niels Fuglsang (S&D), blue-card question. – I would like to ask the speaker whether he is familiar with the methods that exist in order to determine whether the sex of a chick is male or female. They already exist and can be used and will not cost more, neither for the producer nor for the consumer. Thus, is the speaker aware of these methods?

Angel Dzhambazki (ECR), blue-card answer. – With all my respect, dear colleague, do you know the cost of this debate? What will be the cost to the taxpayers, first of all, and second, for the industry? This is what is important for me. What will be the impact of this debate and the future prohibition, the future ban? What will be the social cost, industrial? What will be the cost for the people who are living with and in this industry? I am not against your arguments, but still, what will be the cost? This is what is important for me.

Pär Holmgren (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues – although we are not that many still here on a late Thursday afternoon, which is a pity because this is an important topic. On the other hand, it's 2023 and we shouldn't even need to discuss this anymore, but we do.

As we know, every year the EU animal agricultural industry kills roughly one third of a billion baby chicks and ducklings. As many other Members have mentioned as well, they are brutally ground to death alive or painfully gassed to death. Male chicks are not valuable to the egg industry and female ducklings are not valuable to the foie gras industry, and this is done with the full legal sanction of the EU. But we also know that a large majority of the EU citizens, at least 80%, find this cruel killing for profit inexcusable.

As Nils just mentioned – or try to mention anyhow – the industry has already developed technology to separate eggs from the unwanted sex. So it's not a problem. There is no excuse to justify this cruel practice anymore.

It is time for a full ban at EU level. As a Green MEP, I strongly urge the Commission and all the Member States as well, of course, to listen to its citizens and stop this cruelty now. A total ban must be included in the upcoming animal welfare legislation. Full stop, with no exemptions.

Catch-the-eye procedure

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, we're talking here – as colleagues have said – about the systemic culling of male chicks and female ducklings by way of gassing and grinding. It's horrific, wanton cruelty and it happens to 330 million day-old chicks annually, and millions of day-old female ducklings: exterminated because they have no economic value to the egg or foie gras industry. Now I'm very glad that five of our Member States, to varying degrees, have measures to outlaw this process and that other others view a ban favourably. But what does it say about the EU that to move to an EU-wide ban depends on an economic impact assessment; that the Commission do not have a role, we are told, in the killing of female ducklings because it's not banned in any of the Member States, therefore as isn't an internal market system and you don't want to know.

So the market trumps everything and animal welfare doesn't count. That is not good enough as far as I'm concerned. There's no need for this barbaric practice. As colleagues have said, we need to speed up this process, deliver a full EU-wide ban to stop people exploiting the borders to continue this process, a ban which must include a ban on chick imports from countries that do carry out chick-culling. And while you're at it, the five countries who do foie gras might consider banning that as well.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, the welfare of farmed animals is a key part of the farm to fork strategy, improving food quality and ensuring better biodiversity, central to the EU Green Deal.

But the mass killing of day-old chicks and ducks in the millions is not carried out by small farmers, but by big agri-producers. This agricultural industry lobbying power has resulted in an unambitious report passed by this Parliament last year on animal welfare that completely missed the mark in politically supporting a transition to more sustainable and animal-friendly farming.

This lobbying industry has been systematically undermining the farm to fork strategy since its creation, and only yesterday we had the big groups in here bound to the big agri-lobbyists looking to kill off the new pesticide regulation and the nature restoration law. If an EU-wide ban on male chicks culling is implemented into legislation, what scope will be in place to ensure it cannot be watered down by exemptions lobbied by the big agri-industry as well?

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for enriching today's debate with your pertinent remarks. The very fact that you included this issue on today's agenda speaks to the importance you attach to it. We are currently working on the proposals for the European Parliament and the Council to revise the EU's animal welfare regulation. The killing of day-old chicks is certainly part of the impact assessment process that underpins our proposals.

President. – The debate is closed.

12.   Explanations of vote

President. – The next item is the explanations of vote.

12.1.   Empowering consumers for the green transition (A9-0099/2023 - Biljana Borzan)

Oral explanations of vote

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, the Commission proposals for the Green Claims Directive and the Carbon Removal Certification Framework Regulation were both very disappointing. The Green Claims Directive had a chance to ban climate neutrality claims and failed to do so. The carbon removal certification framework proposal has absolutely nothing to say in terms of how the certificates that would be generated can or should be used. These certs should not be permitted to be used for carbon offsetting.

So the outcome of the IMCO Committee vote in terms of banning climate neutrality claims based on offsets gives us some hope that Parliament might be able to do likewise: amend both the Green Claims Directive and the Carbon Removal certification framework.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, гласувах в подкрепа на този доклад по една много проста причина. Да, разбира се, потребителите търсят и се влияят от рекламите за това кои екологични резултати на стоките и услугите, които купуват са по-високи и кои са по-ниски. И разбира се, трябва да има някакво ниво на доказване и трябва да има някакво ниво, в което потребителите да не бъдат заблуждавани от реклами, които им представят всяка една стока като много екологична, като много природосъобразна и като едва ли не много полезна.

Бяхме свидетели как от пандемията насам, с всичките измислици, които последваха преди, по време и след нея, всичко започна да се рекламира като зелено, като екологично, като екологосъобразно. Помните зелени сертификати и зелени пропуски, всичко стана зелено. Това води до объркване, това води до заблуда на потребителите и действително всички тези твърдения трябва да бъдат доказвани. В тази връзка това е един разумен доклад и се надявам той да има своя резултат.

Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Madam President, I voted in favor of this report, which is about empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information. This, for me, is essential. We can't transition and people can transition if they're not given proper information.

The amending of these two directives leads to great opportunities. It can be a powerful tool to tackle greenwashing practices. They can also provide powerful tools for consumers by providing better information on the durability and repairability of their products. It can lead to providing information on the repairability of products through a repairability score or other relevant repair information, a ban on displaying a sustainability label which is not based on a certification scheme or not established by public authorities and, also, a ban on making an environmental claim about an entire product when it actually concerns only a certain aspect of that product. I had that myself where I was proudly supposedly buying compostable nappies for years at double the price that normal ones were, and after I finished using them I discovered it was actually the package that was recyclable – and I destroyed my compost bin! So this will help people like me who don't read things properly!

12.2.   Roadmap on a Social Europe: two years after Porto (B9-0235/2023, B9-0236/2023)

Oral explanations of vote

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, I sincerely hope that the nappies were for MEP Flanagan's daughter rather than himself – but maybe that's a different discussion!

I voted in favour of this resolution, which has some really good ideas about how to make a social Europe a reality. Despite the fact that European competencies in this field are limited, we could be doing an awful lot more than we are at the moment. We live in a European Union where 21% of our population are at risk of poverty, where the current generation of young people will be the first to be worse off than their parents. The idea of a permanent pensionable job, a roof over your head are gone.

While the Commission insists on maintaining its 3% budget deficit rule, strengthening European budgetary rules, legitimising the war economy and accepting growing inflation which strikes European households, none of these aspirations are going to be achieved – not to mention the naked greed of European capitalists who also stand in the way of achieving it.

The only way in which our rights will be protected and advanced is by workers organising. I'm seriously glad to see that happening.

Piernicola Pedicini (Verts/ALE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io credo che bisogna prendere atto del fatto che nell'Unione europea i diritti sociali e civili non sono salvaguardati in caso di conflitto con le libertà economiche.

In questo momento, in Italia, ci sono ragazzi che protestano a Milano, a Torino, a Roma, a Cagliari, a Firenze, a Pavia. Spesso sono ragazzi del sud, la parte povera del paese, che vivono fuorisede e che protestano contro il caro affitti e contro la discriminazione geografica dei trasporti, fattori che li privano anche del diritto allo studio.

Gli affitti sono inaccessibili e il costo dei voli per tornare a casa è più che raddoppiato; le compagnie aeree hanno distorto la concorrenza e il prezzo di un biglietto da Roma a Palermo può arrivare anche a mille euro, ma nessuno sta facendo proprio niente.

L'Unione europea, da parte sua, ha urgenza di essere più sociale e di intervenire, quindi il forum di Porto deve essere davvero il luogo per vietare i tirocini non retribuiti, per assicurare l'accesso all'alloggio, per lottare contro la discriminazione geografica dei trasporti e per garantire davvero a tutti i nostri ragazzi il diritto allo studio.

12.3.   Adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (B9-0234/2023)

Oral explanations of vote

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, the resolution is rightfully critical of the Data Privacy Framework. It rightly concludes that, as happened with the Schrems I and II cases, the Framework would not survive the criminal justice of the EU. The problem, of course, for the CJEU in the Schrems case, as revealed by Edward Snowden, was the mass surveillance of non-US citizens by the US intelligence services.

However, given Parliament's very obvious awareness of this mass surveillance of EU citizens by the US, as evidenced in the resolution, one has to wonder why the recent clamour to restrict the use of TikTok on corporate devices in the Parliament wasn't also accompanied by a call to do the same for US social media platforms and why such mass media hysteria in relation to TikTok and complete silence on the biggest players in the game?

We have zero evidence of Chinese surveillance of EU citizens via TikTok – though I'm sure they're surveilling their own. Banning TikTok is a geopolitical decision, pandering to the US empire and rooted in anti-China racism.

12.4.   Towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector (B9-0233/2023)

Oral explanations of vote

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, production of algae in Europe in 2019 accounted for less than 1% of global production. So the EU algae sector has huge potential. The algae strategy is especially important for my own Member State, Ireland. Ireland is one of the top three countries in the EU in terms of turnover, employment and numbers of algae companies. There are some fantastic seaweed companies in Ireland: Pure Ocean Algae in Cork, Wild Irish Seaweed in Clare, and Mary Meyler's Ocean Leaves in Killinick in Wexford, which produces seaweed fertilisers and plant-care products.

But it's also crucial that the algae sector develops in such a way that it does not affect the balance of marine ecosystems and that it avoids repeating the same environmental mistakes that were previously made on land. We need to establish what the limit of the resource is for each type of algae and we need solid information on sustainable levels of exploitation.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, they were neglected almost everywhere else while cherished in Asia, but algae are now seen by some as a sort of cure-all, the magic panacea for climate problems. It is true that there are very many opportunities from algae which should be developed in terms of food and feed, medicine, packaging, carbon sequestration and even biofuels.

But the statistics speak for themselves in terms of this potential: worldwide, algae production has increased by almost 75% in the last decade. However, 99.5% of seaweed farming is concentrated in just nine East and South-East Asian countries. It is cruelly underdeveloped in countries like my own, and that absolutely must be encouraged.

But we should also learn the lessons from Asia. Algae are already suffering from the impact of climate change. Species are having difficulty adapting to the warmer waters. There are many ecological risks associated with intensive exploitation of algae, which yet remain unknown, both in terms of the environment and biodiversity. So we have to be pragmatic, we have to focus on these issues, but I voted for the report.

President. – That concludes the item.

13.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

President. – The minutes of this sitting will be submitted to Parliament for its approval at the beginning of its next sitting.

If there are no objections I shall forward forthwith the resolutions adopted at today's sitting to the persons and bodies named therein.

14.   Dates of forthcoming sittings

President. – The next part-session will take place from 31 May to 1 June 2023.

15.   Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 15.50)

16.   Adjournment of the session

President. – I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament.

---

(*1)  Ver ata.