What Bert-Jan spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner, disruptions to the natural balance in the waters around Antarctica cannot possibly leave us cold. As the EU, we share responsibility for the proper management of international waters, including those around the South Pole, also in the light of the Madrid Protocol. Measures are needed to protect vulnerable species such as penguins and whales, based on the best available scientific data and not on randomly chosen and unsubstantiated round numbers. However, something strange is going on with the resolution before us. You would expect that it would only be about Antarctica, but that turns out not to be the case. Once again, this resolution deals with the Commission's biodiversity strategy and zooms in on European waters, while we all know that impact assessments have still not been carried out and it is therefore very premature to take objectives from the biodiversity strategy as a starting point, both for our own policy in the European Union and for the approach in international waters. In this context, I would also like to stress the importance of customisation. It is not possible to apply the same approach to all waters. What is desirable and possible in the Southern Ocean may not be possible and desirable in the EU. Moreover, what do all these plans mean for the fisherman? Certainly in combination with all other spatial claims, the 30% target for our European waters seems to me to be really overstated. If the EU wants to be a global leader, let us set realistic and well-founded targets, including at the Kunming Biodiversity Conference later this year. Protected maritime areas can play a role in protecting biodiversity, but they should not become an end in themselves.

Mr President, Minister, it is clear that we must work together to denounce human rights violations worldwide. Whether it is the persecution of faith, modern slavery or the erosion of democracy, we cannot and must not look away! The Magnitsky Act is an important addition to our toolbox in this regard. However, the abolition of the unanimity rule advocated by many in this House is not the right way forward. The EU Treaty simply does not allow for this. Moreover, it is not necessary at all. Indeed, it is also possible to impose sanctions against companies and individuals in countries such as Russia, Belarus and China by consensus, as practice teaches. The abolition of the unanimity rule is, above all, highly undesirable. Then the big Member States will be the service and small Member States will be sidelined. Foreign policy is just too important for that! Consensus provides support. And that is precisely what is crucial for this to be a powerful instrument.