What Caroline spoke about.

Madam President, the outermost regions are an integral part of the European Union; this is a fact that we often forget. These regions face serious problems, including expensive living, with much higher prices for food and energy. Several of them suffer from chronic underinvestment in education, access to health, infrastructure for access to drinking water or sanitation. Many are also marked by high unemployment and very high inequalities, often inherited from colonial history. But these regions also have incredible potential: a very rich biodiversity, a young population, significant potential in the development of renewable energy, in the blue economy, in sustainable fisheries or agriculture. These regions expect strong support from the European Union, adapted to the specificities of each region, to support economic development, combat expensive living, guarantee everyone decent housing, access to water, education, training and healthcare. In this report, we propose concrete measures to address these complex issues. More EU funding is needed to support innovation and the green transition in the overseas territories.

Madam President, Commissioner, 300 million. 300 million is the number of male chicks that are killed every year in the EU, just minutes after hatching. In hatcheries specialising in the supply of laying hens, male chicks have no value and most often end up crushed, shredded. However, alternatives such as sexing in the egg make it possible to identify the sex of a chick a week before hatching. Several countries, such as France or Germany, have already legislated to ban the grinding of chicks. It is time to ban this practice across Europe. But why could what would apply to chicks not apply to ducklings? Foie gras producers raise only male ducks and every year millions of female ducklings are crushed from birth, while the same egg sexing techniques exist. There can be no justification for a difference in treatment between male chicks and female ducklings. The European Commission must ban the systematic grinding of both. Citizens rely on you.

Mr President, with this resolution, Parliament is sending a strong signal in favour of algae cultivation in Europe. Its development has many interests. Algae is an alternative to fishmeal used in aquaculture, which leads to the plundering of the seas in West Africa. But algae are also interesting for human consumption, a nutritious and sustainable food. The cultivation of macroalgae sequesters carbon and contributes to the fight against climate change. It can also contribute to the restoration of marine ecosystems. The cultivation of algae can allow some fishermen to diversify in terms of their activity. However, it will be necessary to ensure that the cultivation of algae remains sustainable. Avoid the collection of algae using destructive techniques such as dredges and favour less impactful methods. Growing local species, avoiding monocultures of algae that would pose health risks. So let’s develop the cultivation of algae, but avoid repeating the drifts of intensive aquaculture.

Mr Rougé, I have a small question. A few minutes ago, the president of your party, Mr Jordan Bardella, gave a speech on fishermen, then he left the Chamber directly without waiting for the Commissioner's reply. This is a bit like the MEPs in your party. Whether it is the battle for the demersal seine, the nature restoration law, the report or the quota distribution, your group has not even appointed a shadow rapporteur. You claim to be defending fishermen, so why is there never anyone at the Rassemblement National?

Mr President, Commissioner, for there to be fishermen, there must be fish. For there to be fish, there must be ecosystems in good condition. This is a simple logic: Without nature, no food. However, it seems that this logic escapes a good part of the EPP and Renaissance MPs. If there are to be fishermen in Europe in 30 years' time, the impact of fishing on ecosystems must be rapidly reduced. With this Marine Ecosystems Action Plan, the European Commission has dared to put this issue on the table. Bottom trawling has serious consequences for marine ecosystems. We have to answer them. The Commission has not even proposed a regulation. It only reminded Member States of their obligations in Natura 2000 areas and invited them to ban bottom trawling in other marine protected areas. For doing this, she was accused, including by ministers, of wanting the death of small-scale fishing, of wanting to starve Europeans. A little more, they were accused of eating children. It is a pity that those responsible for ensuring the sustainability of fishing activities and the protection of the oceans prefer to foolishly repeat the language elements of industrial fishing lobbies, rather than tackling the real problems and embarking on the transition to low-impact fishing. Many examples exist. Banning bottom trawling in a marine protected area can be an opportunity for small-scale artisanal fishing. So let's put some relationship back into this debate, listen to the scientists' alerts, and work on implementing this action plan.

Mr President, Commissioner, on , this cruel practice of sharp-cutting shark fins has been banned in the European Union since 2013. Yet the EU remains one of the largest exporters of shark fins in the world. We continue to kill sharks massively to fuel the fin trade, disregarding the consequences for biodiversity. More than one million European citizens have signed the European Citizens’ Initiative calling for a ban on trade in shark fins. This prohibition is necessary. The fact that there is still a legal trade in shark fins facilitates the laundering of illegal fins, those derived from the finning or those of protected species. Banning the trade in shark fins would make it easier to combat illegal trade in protected species and reduce the number of sharks that are killed each year. To stop the killing of elephants, the ivory trade has been banned. To save sharks, we must ban the trade in their fins. So thank you, Commissioner, millions of citizens are counting on you.

Mr President, according to the French Minister for the Ecological Transition, global warming is not a political reality but a natural one. Depoliticizing climate change makes it possible to get rid of all responsibility. Such a statement clearly shows the hypocrisy that a majority of European governments continue to display. The latest IPCC report makes this very clear: climate change is the result of human activities and political choices that have been made in recent decades, namely those of neoliberalism and support for a totally outdated productivism. Not acting for the climate also means not acting for social justice. However, in this Parliament, there are many who, like the French minister, pretend not to hear anything, by continuing to give gifts to large companies and by putting the burden of the ecological transition on the poorest. Yet you bear responsibility for future generations, whether you like it or not.

Mr President, Commissioner, the subject of the animal condition is one of the priorities of European citizens. One minute is short, so I would like to focus on the big forgotten animal welfare policies, aquatic animals. In the last decade or so, scientific knowledge about them has increased dramatically. Today, we know that fish have mental abilities that have nothing to envy to those of birds and mammals. However, dolphins and orcas continue to be exhibited and abused in dolphinariums. An octopus farm project is allowed to develop in Spain, although these animals are highly intelligent, highly sensitive and do not support promiscuity. The development of aquaculture in Europe is massively encouraged and financed even before the adoption of animal protection rules for the rearing, slaughter and transport of aquatic animals. The Commission completely ignores the issue of animal welfare in the fisheries sector. While minor adjustments would avoid unnecessary suffering. We do not hear fish screaming, but they suffer. If the Commission does not act, it is because there is a lack of coordination and political leadership on this issue. That is why we are calling for the creation of a Commissioner for Animal Condition.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened to you. We all agree here that small-scale artisanal fishing is essential for the life of our coastal territories, for the food security of our continent. We agree that small-scale fishermen need to be defended, that they should receive a larger share of fishing quotas and that they need to be better integrated into decision-making processes. But when I scratch a little under the varnish, when I read the report in its details, I seriously begin to doubt your intentions. How can we claim to defend small-scale fishermen and at the same time ask for the definition of small-scale fishing to be broadened to include vessels over 12 metres in length? If we did that, the EMFAF funding that is now reserved for small-scale coastal fishing would be totally diluted and there would only be crumbs for small-scale fishing. How can we claim to defend small-scale fisheries without addressing the first threat to them: industrial fishing? When an industrial vessel passes somewhere and ravages an entire fishing zone, it is the small fishermen, those who can no longer go fishing elsewhere, who are the first victims. So today, it is these fishermen that I think of, those who set up short circuits to sell their products at a fair price. Those who have attacked the French State to obtain a fair distribution of bluefin tuna quotas, the fishing boats of the Pointe de Bretagne who ask for a biological rest period for sea bass and those who have fought to ban electric fishing and who are now fighting for a moratorium against demersal seines.

Mr President, the issue of cohabitation between wolves and human activities is a very complex one and multiplying the number of wolves killed each year is not the solution. In France, the government allowed 174 wolves to be killed in 2022. This is huge! And for what result? France is the country that kills the most, but has the least results. Instead of killing wolves, we must accompany the herders. Experiments involving shepherd dogs such as the patou have been carried out in my area and have shown very positive results, significantly reducing the number of attacks. Farmers, for example, are calling for areas where patous purchases are subsidized to be extended throughout the country. So let's get out of the caricature and really act to live with the wolf.

Madam President, Madam, on your understanding, only the European Commission is responsible. You give the idea that this ban is illegitimate, but it is legitimate, since we voted for it. Parliament and the Council voted on this regulation on deep-sea fishing in 2016. Today's Commission is just applying it, as I said in my speech. Parliament adopts a law and the Commission applies it. It is just a question of democracy.

Madam President, Commissioner, the deep seabed is both one of the most biodiverse and one of the most fragile ecosystems. One of the richest, as they contain species of fish, molluscs or corals of extraordinary diversity; one of the most fragile, as species mature there very late and reproduce very slowly and habitats take a long time to rebuild when damaged. Deep-sea trawling is undoubtedly the greatest destroyer of this marine biodiversity. It is responsible for real underwater deforestation. This is intolerable! The oceans are the lungs of humanity. In 2016, our Parliament adopted a regulation banning trawling beyond 800 metres deep and, in vulnerable marine ecosystems, beyond 400 metres deep. This Regulation entrusts the Commission and scientists with the task of mapping these ecosystems. This has been done by ICES, an international scientific institution unanimously recognised for its competence, on the basis of data provided by Member States. The sector has been involved. The European Commission has simply taken up these recommendations, as required by the regulation we voted on. Some cite economic impacts. We do not deny this, and there are many European funds to help shipowners who need them. But landings of deep-sea species account for only 0.4% of total landings in the EU. The areas concerned by this implementing act represent barely 1.6% of European waters in the North-East Atlantic. Nothing insurmountable, therefore, when shipowners had six years to prepare, since Parliament voted in 2016. I find it shameful that today the EPP, the far right and part of Renew are seeking to instrumentalise this issue for national political gains. You play with facts, you twist reality. The oceans are not your toy, but a common heritage to preserve. Vulnerable ecosystems in deep waters deserve real protection, as requested by scientists, as requested by the United Nations, even if it disturbs some lobbies.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a year and a half ago our Parliament adopted a resolution on Haiti. What has happened since then? The situation has worsened further. Assassination of President Moïse, earthquake, violence, Haiti sinks every day a little more into chaos. Murders, rapes, kidnappings are a daily occurrence. Terror reigns in Port-au-Prince. Gangs control the capital, act in complicity with corrupt politicians. The current government has been operating without any democratic legitimacy for months. In recent weeks, shortages of fuel and drinking water have led to protests and riots. The country is collapsing under the eyes of the international community. What pretext will we still use to justify our immobility? The United States is playing a double game, violating international law by expelling Haitians who seek asylum. Haitians no longer believe in the promises of the international community and I understand them. I have witnessed for several months their efforts to improve their lot despite all the difficulties. Their courage is immense. We must not disappoint them. We must support the proposals for a solution to the crisis put forward in the framework of the Montana Agreement, which is the fruit of consensus among many civil society organisations. Let us listen to the voice of the Haitian people, those who demand a transition of rupture.

Mr. Speaker, "Why is my people paying the price for this global warming?" These are the words of the Prime Minister of Pakistan. While Pakistan accounts for 0.3% of global cumulative CO2 emissions, it is one of the states most affected by the effects of climate change. The floods that hit the country are a climate carnage: 1,500 deaths, 33 million affected people – homeless, without access to water or food –, 7.6 million displaced people and a high risk of water-borne epidemics and diseases such as cholera, diarrhoea, dengue fever and malaria. The situation could get even worse if the Sukkur Dam, which contains the largest freshwater reserve in the country, collapses. Almost the entire Pakistani agricultural system depends on this dam for its water supply. The Commission has released €30 million in aid: That is good, but it is too little – less than EUR 1 per person affected. The damage is $10 billion. We are responsible for global warming, and therefore its consequences. Such a low level of support is not enough. So this disaster, it must also ask us about the implementation of global actions in the long term: massively support adaptation and prevention policies, put in place a protective framework for climate-displaced people, adopt at international level an effective mechanism for loss and damage, as requested by the Southern states during the climate negotiations. We will face more disasters in the coming years. If necessary, ad hoc responses, on a case-by-case basis, are not up to the task. Let's really act.

Madam President, thank you to Mr Mato, rapporteur. The Indian Ocean is in a situation that is very worrying since the yellowfin tuna is on the verge of collapse. There are problems of illegal fishing and under-reporting of catches in the region. There are not enough mandatory inspections. Therefore, in the face of this situation, the European Commission proposed an additional common sense measure: an obligation to weigh catches during transhipments, when transferring fish from one fishing vessel to another in ports in order to have more traceability. But under pressure from industrial tuna fishermen, Member States opposed it on the pretext that it would create unfair competition rules between European and Indian Ocean vessels. This is a missed opportunity to act for the oceans. This is worrying in a context where the fisheries control regulation is being negotiated and where Member States and part of this Parliament are calling for outlier derogations for industrial tuna vessels.

Madam President, aquaculture is often presented as the solution to limit overfishing while maintaining or even increasing our consumption of fish. But truly sustainable forms of aquaculture are rare. Aquaculture is not sustainable when, in order to feed carnivorous species, fishmeal is imported that endangers the food security of several African countries. Aquaculture is not sustainable when it threatens fishermen and marine ecosystems in the Natura 2000 area, as is the case with the Gulf-Juan mega-farm. It is not sustainable when animals are crammed in by the hundreds, without any density limit, that they are forced to behave contrary to their nature. It is not sustainable when it uses slaughter techniques that cause suffering, such as asphyxiation or ice grout, when alternatives exist. Finally, aquaculture is not sustainable, it is cruel when it plans to raise octopuses, creatures so sensitive and so intelligent. The Commission should therefore be more cautious about the development of aquaculture and take advantage of future regulations to set a protective framework.

Madam President, the oceans are in a state of emergency. Despite these words of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, we are doing too little to respond to the climate crisis, the life crisis that is hitting the oceans. Worse, a new threat appears, deep seabed mining. The mining industry and some states are lobbying and wanting to be the first to get their hands on precious minerals that are plentiful in the oceans. Yet scientists warn us: this activity will cause irreversible damage to the functioning of marine ecosystems over several generations and aggravate the climate crisis. The European Commission and Parliament have taken a strong stance against deep-sea mining. A call for a moratorium has already been signed by 250 parliamentarians from more than 50 countries. The Member States of the European Union must clearly position themselves in favour of a moratorium on deep-sea mining. Moreover, the position of the French government remains ambiguous on the subject. Our responsibility is to stop this crazy race for the oceans and for our future generations.

Mr President, the report on food insecurity in developing countries that we are going to vote on is a comprehensive report that proposes to create the conditions for real food sovereignty for developing countries. I support what my colleague, Benoît Biteau, said earlier on this subject. One subject that deserves to be further explored is fisheries. In many countries, coastal communities rely heavily on fishing for food, but competition is increasingly tough with foreign fleets. Access to fisheries resources for artisanal fishers must be protected. In western Africa, for example, coastal communities fish and consume species such as sardinella, which are increasingly caught by foreign fleets to produce fishmeal for aquaculture, including in Europe. In Madagascar, while the country is facing a situation of major food insecurity, almost all of the tuna caught is exported from the country. Let’s not leave the keys to the food system to agro-industry. Last week, at the World Ocean Conference, artisanal fisheries organisations called for action on small-scale fisheries to call on the international community to ensure access to marine resources and markets for fisheries... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, certain measures are demanded by the fishermen themselves. For example, fishermen in northern France are insistently calling for a moratorium on the use of Danish seines, particularly in the English Channel. Would you be prepared to support this request?

Mr President, Commissioner, two weeks ago the European Commission proposed ambitious legislative measures to restore ecosystems and reduce pesticides. This is a strong signal sent before COP 15. Overfishing is now the leading factor in the decline of marine biodiversity. The action plan on the protection of fisheries resources and marine biodiversity must therefore play a crucial role in protecting and restoring marine ecosystems. However, its publication has been postponed again. Will this affect his ambition? How will the European Commission ensure that marine protected areas are truly protected by finally banning industrial extractive activities such as offshore drilling, mining and fishing techniques that have the greatest impact on the seabed? How does the European Commission intend to end overfishing outside marine protected areas? And what will be the link between the Nature Restoration Act and the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular as regards the restoration measures that have so far failed to be implemented under the Common Fisheries Policy?

Mr President, we are voting for a consensual report on the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. This is good news. We all agree on the objectives and the need for action. But if we do not act concretely, objective by objective, we will never succeed. For example, last week, WTO members reached an ambitious agreement to achieve SDG 14.6 on banning fisheries subsidies harmful to the marine environment. This is historic. The agreement prohibits subsidies to illegal fisheries, but also all subsidies to vessels targeting overfished species. Except that the agreement does not prohibit subsidies encouraging fishing capacity and does not say anything about fuel subsidies. This amounts to almost €18 billion of public money globally, part of which leads to overfishing and leaves millions of people hungry and poor. We'll have to go even further. As humanitarian crises and climate change accelerate, European and global policies are still far from being aligned with the SDGs. Is the Common Agricultural Policy compatible with the Paris Agreements? No, no. Are trade policies compatible with food security? No, no. Achieving the SDGs means first and foremost taking concrete action to transform our policies.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to be able to present this report on the implementation of Article 17 of the regulation on the common fisheries policy. To look at this article is to ask who has the right to fish what in the European Union. As a reminder, the Council is responsible for fixing the total allowable catches each year. These quotas are distributed among the Member States, and it is each Member State that then decides on the rules according to which these quotas are distributed among the different fishermen and producer organisations. It is therefore a competence of the Member States, but Article 17 of the CFP Regulation lays down a number of obligations for them. The first is an obligation of transparency. The report points to the general lack of transparency and the fact that several states do not make public the details of the criteria they apply for allocating fishing quotas. There is a need for transparent, accessible and understandable mechanisms, not only from a democratic point of view, but also to ensure that all fishers have fair access to fisheries resources. The remainder of Article 17 concerns the type of criteria to be used and the incentive nature of distribution systems. It provides for states to use economic, environmental and social criteria. The English text, which the co-legislators negotiated, is clear: the use of these criteria is an obligation. This is also the case in most EU languages. But there are discrepancies in some language versions, which are now used as a pretext for not applying what the co-legislators voted. The report points out that few Member States use environmental, social or economic criteria to allocate fishing opportunities, and that, when used, they have very little weight in the final allocation. Today, the majority of distribution systems are largely based on fishing anteriorities. Our report stresses that this helps to strengthen economic concentration in the sector, while creating barriers and making it unattractive for young fishermen. Above all, it is the small-scale fishermen and artisanal fishermen who are once again harmed. I'll give you an example. In 2020, small-scale fishers received only a tiny share of the bluefin tuna quota: 3% in Italy, 12% in Croatia, 12% in France, 14% in Portugal. In France, these small-scale fishermen brought legal proceedings against the decree allocating the bluefin tuna quota. The Montpellier Administrative Court upheld them at first instance. So yes, there is a call, but it shows that the current system is seen as unfair and creates frustration and discontent among fishermen. Member States must also ensure that their allocation system promotes best practices for the environment. This is an obligation, and it is not implemented! Since the adoption of the last reform, the Commission has done very little. The report notes that no infringement proceedings have been launched. Yet the way in which fishing quotas are allocated is crucial. Let’s not tell ourselves stories: we will not be able to achieve the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, the Marine Framework Directive, the Green Deal or the Biodiversity Strategy without addressing the issue of quota allocation. If Member States continue the laissez-faire, let small-scale fishing disappear, do not reward fishermen who implement more virtuous fishing practices, we will not achieve our objectives. We therefore make this clear in this report: the Commission must act. The report calls on the Commission to do more to ensure that Member States change their quota allocation systems. Sharing best practices, issuing guidelines, setting targets, for example in the framework of the Fisheries Resources Action Plan. I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation on this file and I invite you to vote in favour of this report and to maintain the important points on which we agreed in the Committee on Fisheries.

Mr President, thank you to Mrs Carvalhais for this excellent report. However, some MEPs want to come back to a key point: the prohibition of bottom trawling in all marine protected areas. Today, the vast majority of marine protected areas are actually very little, if any, protected and are subject to bottom trawling and other destructive fishing techniques. Bottom trawling, which involves scraping the bottom of the oceans, is, according to scientists, one of the fishing techniques with the greatest impact on the seabed. Call for a ban on bottom trawling in European marine protected areas for biodiversity, climate and the future of fishermen. This is a coherent demand and a strong political signal before the publication of the Action Plan for the Protection of Marine Ecosystems by the European Commission. But this demand disturbs some lobbies. Attempts to remove or dilute it are not up to the stakes. Let us listen to citizens, young people, scientists and IUCN. I therefore call on my colleagues to vote tomorrow for the oceans by banning bottom trawling in all marine protected areas.

Mr President, Commissioner, the aggression against Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of European solidarity. The conflict in Ukraine continues to be marked by violent and intensified fighting and the number of refugees continues to increase. Millions of Ukrainians, mostly children and women, are fleeing Ukraine and seeking refuge in neighbouring countries. Many Ukrainians have lost everything. Our duty is to guarantee everyone shelter, food, access to education for children, access to healthcare, including reproductive and sexual health, including psychological support. As you said earlier, Commissioner, we need to do more to address the scale of the ongoing humanitarian crisis, which does not seem to be coming to an end. After releasing a first aid package two weeks ago, we welcome this new Commission proposal to respond to a crisis whose evolution and scale remain uncertain. This mechanism will make it possible to mobilise the funds available through React-EU to help the Member States hosting the most refugees fleeing the war. In the future, too, we will have to live up to our expectations: the European Union must welcome refugees, not just Ukrainians, but all those seeking refuge in the European Union. This crisis must be an opportunity for us to rethink our migration policy and to put respect for fundamental rights and respect for the right to asylum back at its heart. And of course, our political group supports this funding.

Madam President, Brexit remains a losing event. My colleagues have already been able to mention its many consequences for European fisheries. One of the keys to addressing this is sustainability. Brexit should not be used as a pretext to delay the actions needed to move towards more sustainable fisheries. Sustainable management of stocks is the only way to ensure the sustainability of fishing activities, both in the long term and in the medium term. Good management of haddock stocks has, for example, led to an increase in TACs, which fully compensates for the fall due to Brexit. On the contrary, unsustainable management would lead to reductions in catches and would only worsen the situation of fishermen. As we have seen in France, small-scale fishing and vessels less than 12 metres in length have been particularly affected by the imbroglio and the uncertainty associated with the allocation of fishing licences. There is now great uncertainty about the post-2026 period, as access to UK waters for European vessels will no longer be guaranteed after that date. Fishermen have already suffered greatly from the consequences of Brexit. We count on the Commission to start negotiations now for a multi-annual agreement that will prevent them from suffering further. Let us stay the course towards a more sustainable fishery.