What Gabriel spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner, listen to the cries for help from the European Union's agricultural and fisheries sector that are being heard from outside. Farmers and fishermen feel helpless and have said enough: it is enough to promote disproportionate legislative proposals that directly harm their interests and jeopardise their livelihood and food security. Our farmers and fishermen feel persecuted, labelled as if they were to blame for climate change and, meanwhile, the Commission ignores the great effort they have made to reduce CO2 emissions. Farmers and fishermen say yes to the law of restoration of nature, which is a laudable objective, but not in this way, not at this time of great global challenges and with legislation raised behind the back of the primary sector and unrealistic. By the way, after your speech today, the president of the Socialist Group, who is now absent, will find it very difficult to explain to the farmers of Castilla y León and the rest of Spain why she turns her back on them. Of course, environmental sustainability is necessary, but so is the economic and social sustainability of our farmers and fishermen, who are equally vulnerable. Commissioner, nature cannot be restored without farmers. You can't restore nature against farmers. They had the opportunity, lost already, to have withdrawn this law of restoration of nature and now we are going to reject it, hoping that a law will come that seeks to reconcile the protection of the environment with the activity of producing quality food for all citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would first like to highlight the Commission's work in regional fisheries management organisations, making a decisive contribution to ocean governance at international level. The Commissioner has often listened to my criticisms and today I would like to reiterate our opposition to the discriminatory and unfair measures for the European Union fleet adopted at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Having said that, Commissioner, when transposing the agreements, the Commission imposes very strict measures on EU fishermen, which is not the case with non-EU fleets, and this means that all operators operating in the same area and marketing their products on the same markets are unequal, with the consequent loss of competitiveness of our operators vis-à-vis foreign operators. Another issue I want to highlight, and it has already been done here today, is that transposition should be left to the co-legislators and not carried out by means of delegated acts, especially to avoid situations where the Commission goes much further than agreed. Finally, I do not want to overlook a worrying reality: It is absolutely unacceptable that the Commission's proposal should reach Parliament months or even, as is the case, years late, with the paradox that when we adopt the text the measures have already been repeatedly amended. Commissioner, lay down an effective way of swiftly transposing the measures adopted in international organisations, because good governance also starts by respecting the role played by each institution in the European Union.

Madam President, no one can put the aggressor and the aggressor on the same footing. We will remember those who, at this solemn moment, are not by our side. These are your words, Mr. Borrell. You went to Cuba two weeks ago. He has not uttered the word "political prisoners" or "of conscience." He has not met either family members or civil society not dependent on the regime. He has not uttered the word "freedom," which is what the Cuban people seek when fleeing tyranny. You have said that they are great trading partners, that we differ in how we organise our governments and that the European Union does not have the will to impose changes on Cuba. Can you tell me how far we've come? I'm telling you: not at all. Cuba remains one of the longest-lived dictatorships. Thousands of political prisoners remain in prisons. There are still no free elections. Political pluralism does not exist. There is still a lack of judicial independence, systematic repression of the voices of opponents. Can we call that moving forward? No, Mr Borrell, we have not advanced and you must not settle. The European Union must aspire to change on the island, ratify that policy and defend democracy in Cuba as well. Those who suffer there deserve it.

Mr President, the sixth resolution on Nicaragua and the brutal repression of the Ortega Murillo regime continues unabated on all fronts. On February 1, 222 political prisoners were exiled from Nicaragua to the United States and subsequently stripped of their nationality. A symbol of resistance against tyranny and repression, Bishop Rolando Álvarez was sentenced to twenty-six years and four months in prison after refusing to leave the country and accept expulsion. Sadly, in Nicaragua everything remains the same and most Nicaraguans suffer in a hopeless country. Anyone who opposes this brutal regime is killed, imprisoned, has to flee the country or will be deported. The electoral processes are a farce. There is no freedom of the press. Thousands of NGOs have been dissolved and the Catholic Church continues to suffer severe attacks. Faced with this dramatic situation, it is not time to make concessions. More sanctions need to be imposed. The European Union cannot be portrayed alongside Ortega at the upcoming EU-CELAC summit. We need to coordinate efforts with other democratic countries to isolate this dictatorship internationally. How much longer do we have to wait to activate the democratic clause of the Association Agreement?

Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Álvaro Amaro for his excellent work on this very important report for the outermost regions. There are two very clear messages. The first is that the outermost regions are very important and are also an opportunity for Europe. The second, POSEI plays and will play an inextricable role in the maintenance and development of agricultural production and the processing industry. It is therefore absolutely necessary to maintain POSEI and increase its budget from 2027. That said, strategies such as Biodiversity and Farm to Fork risk aggravating the situation of the outermost regions if they are not properly designed for them. I insist: any EU biodiversity strategy should be balanced and should cover not only environmental, but also social and economic aspects. I also look at free trade agreements. These have to protect and take into account European production. Like the agricultural sector, the fisheries sector, in the current circumstances of crisis, needs to ensure safety; public funds must be earmarked for this and for the renewal of an absolutely obsolete fleet. So what are we waiting for to create a specific instrument for the fisheries sector such as POSEI... (the Chair took the floor from the speaker).

Mr President, I believe that today no one doubts that seafood is healthy and that we must not lose sight of the need to produce more food from the oceans, which is also a strategic objective identified by the European Union. Together with fisheries, aquaculture and other related sectors, the algae sector is of vital strategic importance and also contributes to food security. In addition, the production and processing of algae can serve the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, biostimulants, biological origin and cosmetics. The European Union is one of the world's leading importers of seaweed products. The sector estimates that European demand for algae could increase from around 270 000 tonnes in 2019 to 8 million tonnes in 2030 and reach a value of almost €9 billion this year. We therefore need to promote the sustainable development of this young and dynamic sector of the European Union. And so that you may see, Commissioner, that I too know how to recognize the successes: the Commission communication is very welcome, especially as it proposes administrative simplification, improving the governance framework and the business environment. To harness the potential of the EU algae sector, the cultivation and production of regenerative algae needs to be expanded across the European Union and algae markets need to be developed. As the Commission itself points out, a thriving EU algae industry could become a flagship and a source of inspiration for other industries to become more regenerative, innovative and socially exemplary, creating thousands of jobs in the process, especially in coastal communities. I fully share that, Commissioner. Of course, algae and microalgae can represent an important complementary source of protein to those that come from fish, crustaceans and other traditional types of seafood, but what is very clear is that in no case can they replace them, as some claim.

Mr President, Commissioner, your action plan to protect marine ecosystems is in fact a plan to destroy sustainable fisheries. If its aim in the action plan was to close the gap between the environment and the CFP, the only truth is that it has just demolished the bridge between the Commission and fishermen. The fishermen's cry against their policy is unanimous. You hear it, but you don't want to hear it. In their action plan they propose to phase out bottom trawling in all marine protected areas by 2030. In other words, a ban on bottom trawling in one third of the EU's seas. And they do so without any scientific basis, without any impact assessment and without any alternative to fishermen and families dependent on this ancestral gear, one of the most common and regulated fishing gears in Europe. But it's not new. Already in its proposal on the Biodiversity Strategy, it pointed the finger at fisheries as the main responsible for the deterioration of the marine environment. But why so much obsession with fishermen? Why don't you mention other maritime industries like oil, gas, dredging, shipping, which can be much more harmful? Commissioner, the sector feels discriminated against and betrayed. And besides, he's right. It is not fair for the Commission to regard fishing as the source of all evil. It's not fair that I ignore fishermen. The ban on all maritime protected areas is discriminatory, disproportionate, unjustified and not based on science. Nor have they been concerned about the socio-economic effects on the European Union fleet. They have not done a full impact assessment. Why? For what? Isn't it? And, in case this plan was not enough to end the sector, they present us with the proposal on nature restoration, which comes to tiptoe a battered sector. Focusing solely on protection and ignoring socio-economic considerations and food security objectives is contrary to the CFP, the Treaty and common sense. Environmental protection is important, but so is the protection of fishermen. There are vulnerable ecosystems, but fishermen and their families are also vulnerable. Commissioner, do not forget that you are the Commissioner for Fisheries, although so many times it does not seem so.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that this morning we have an almost monographic session on fishing at a very delicate time. The day before yesterday, fishermen across Europe showed a deep and resounding rejection of the policy being pursued by the European Union. Commissioner, reflect and rectify. Focusing now on the citizens' initiative, it must be recognised that in the European Union we are setting an example in relation to shark fishing, with strong legislation ensuring sustainable exploitation, which is not the case in other countries. This includes a ban on finning (finning) for European Union operators wherever they operate in the world, fin policy adhered to since 2013 – fins must be attached to bodies –, satellite monitoring of their activities, electronic logbook on board, observers on board, ban on catching vulnerable species, scientific monitoring since the 1990s providing data for scientific assessments. The agreement under CITES means that trade in shark fins will be regulated and limited, and that sharks can now only be traded if they are not endangered. The current reality is that the fins that arrive at our ports or that are marketed from ports of the European Union are those corresponding to the fleet of the European Union, all of them landed in regime of adhered fins, products that, in addition, must now be provided and accompanied by the corresponding CITES certificate that certifies their origin and traceability. A ban on the fin trade will only close tightly regulated fishing in the European Union, prompting more exploitation in other parts of the world, where shark fishing is much less sustainable. The European Union accounts for only a small percentage of global trade in shark fins. In addition, the ban would not address the main threat to sharks, which is unsustainable overfishing. And this ban will only penalize sustainable operators in the European Union while countries such as China or Korea, which have systematically blocked any European Union initiative to ban finning In international bodies, they will continue their illegal practices. Is this what we want?

Mr President, Commissioner, I am sure you will understand me better than any of your colleagues. Farmers and ranchers are not the enemies. Neither are fishermen. Understand it well and act accordingly. The Farm to Fork Strategy, the proposal to reduce the use of plant protection products or the Nature Restoration Act run counter to the interests of the agricultural sector. Our farmers feel persecuted, singled out as the culprits of climate change. European farmers have made great efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and nitrates, but the Commission attacks them mercilessly. Dear Commissioner, we demand that the Commission make legislative proposals based on data, on science, without demagogues, without mistakes, and, above all, that they do not endanger the Union's food security. Farmers are part of the solution and want to continue to live off their work, which is nothing other than feeding European citizens with quality products.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, at a time when the European Union is fully aware of the importance of intensifying relations with Latin America, I would like to express my deep concern about the political and social crisis suffered by a friendly country and natural ally such as Peru. There are already several years of misgovernment. Six presidents in six years. Pedro Castillo has held this position for sixteen months, with a balance of five cabinets, more than seventy ministers and an attempt at self-coup, which has plunged the country into widespread chaos and has also caused dozens of victims. Peru has for decades serious structural problems that must be addressed with a constructive dialogue between all political forces, forgetting short-termism and seeking a constitutional, democratic and institutional solution that leads to early elections. But one can fall into the temptation of other countries in the region, where dictatorial or authoritarian governments have emerged. In Peru, constitutional order and respect for human rights must always prevail. To that end, institutions must be strengthened, corruption must be combated and the necessary governance must be achieved.

Mr President, a comprehensive EU strategy towards China must necessarily be based on realism, mutual respect, reciprocity and transparency. It is clear to no one that relations with China are very complex, as it is both a necessary partner to jointly manage global challenges, a formidable economic competitor that must comply with WTO rules, and a systemic, political and strategic rival. In this way, the European Union must agree on a medium- and long-term strategy that incorporates the three dimensions mentioned above, with clear, compatible and complementary objectives to those of our partners and allies, and with mechanisms for monitoring and monitoring their implementation. Faced with this reality, EU leaders must act together and in unison. Disagreements remain if all 27 of us want to move towards the same goal and vision of the role we must play in the world. For its part, China has, on the occasion of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a great opportunity to show that it is on the right side of history.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Canary Islands, as an outermost region, has always demonstrated its commitment to combating climate change. But when it comes to connectivity, the outermost regions' heavy dependence on air and sea connections is not comparable to that of any other territory. We are playing a lot in this legislative package because we have no alternative to our mobility, to the supply of goods or to the arrival of tourists. We live by it and we want to continue to live by it. We clearly need a differentiated regime that is fully compatible with our economic model. It is true that we have been given more flexibility and more time to adapt, but this is clearly insufficient. We call for a total exoneration and beyond 2030 of the cost of allowances generated by maritime and air transport, both within Spanish territory and outside it. We need tourists to continue to come to our islands and not to be unfairly taxed. We have time to extend the scope of the derogations for the outermost regions. There is a legal basis in Article 349 of the Treaty. May the lack of political will and the absence of solidarity not jeopardise the immediate future of these regions as far away, but as European as all the others.

Madam President, many dissidents and opponents have been imprisoned, tortured, killed or made to disappear in Equatorial Guinea. There are also many thousands of Guineans who have been forced to live in exile. But it is not only political opponents who are suffering repression, but also judges, journalists, police and citizens in general, for the simple fact of expressing their opinions. Among those persecuted and retaliated against was Julio Obama, a Spanish and therefore European citizen, who was kidnapped, imprisoned without a fair trial and subjected to brutal torture in prisons in Equatorial Guinea until his death. The causes of his death must be immediately clarified and those responsible punished. It is absolutely necessary to stop all human rights violations in Equatorial Guinea. The European institutions have an obligation to contribute to this. The European Union and the Member States must consider, once and for all, that international relations should not take precedence over interests, but rather values.

Madam President, there is some nervousness in the ranks of the left. I don't know if it will have anything to do with the approaching elections in Greece and Nea Dimokratia clearly leading all the polls. Ladies and gentlemen, as much as you want to draw a totalitarian and oppressive Greece, Greek citizens are well aware of the progress made in recent years on the rule of law. Something that also certifies prestigious international institutions such as The Economist or Transparency International. In just four years, the government of Mitsotakis has modernized regulation on cybersecurity and intelligence agencies and today leads the debate on the European Press Freedom Regulation. Since then, Greece has steadily improved its democratic quality and risen in all indices, and is already above most of the Member States of the European Union. So stop looking for ghosts. Stop trying to tarnish the image of Greece and recognize the reality: Greece is a prosperous democracy and the Greeks are much better off today than they were four years ago.

Madam President, Commissioner, I am very happy that we have this debate, even if it is at this time and it is the last item on the agenda. And you know why? Because many people fill their mouths when talking about artisanal fishing, but, when it comes to the truth, when you have to adopt measures and make decisions that favor this fleet, so important for many coastal areas, the facts remain empty words. I have always defended the obvious: whereas small-scale fishing has specific characteristics and unique needs. That is why we have asked the Member States, without having to come into conflict with any other fisheries, to take into account the needs of small-scale fisheries. Also in the new European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, for which I was rapporteur, we envisage special support for this fishery. Arguments there are, legal provisions too. There is only a lack of will to make it effective. Why do they still refuse to allow fishermen to fish better than no more? Why cannot the modernisation of an obsolete and insecure fleet, especially in the outermost regions, be financed with a view to improving safety, living conditions on board and energy efficiency? Why, when allocating quotas, such as bluefin tuna or tuna, is this fleet, on the other hand, the most sustainable in existence, not taken into account? Commissioner, the fishermen are waiting for answers. They are also expected by fishermen's guilds, which play a key role and are confident that they will be able to receive some form of financial support, as producer organisations do. I welcome this report, which includes not only a sound diagnosis of the problems faced by the small-scale fishing fleet, but also proposes immediate, significant and effective measures that will also enable fishermen to earn more. Commissioner, you have a new opportunity on the table. Do not disappoint the fishermen, who today more than ever need our full support.

Madam President, Commissioner, 2023 has to be the year of agreements. The intensification of relations with Latin America should be reflected in the signature and ratification of the pending agreements with Mercosur – one point: to reject without palliatives what happened in Brazil and with Chile and Mexico, count on us, with the majority support of my group. In an international scenario of uncertainty and in which actors such as Russia and China redouble their presence in Latin America, we cannot afford to lose allies. Enough of protectionist deviations from some Member States. Enough to thwart attempts at greater economic integration between the two blocs. No more excuses. We're talking about opportunities. Finally, I do not want to forget a fundamental element. I hope that the forthcoming EU-CELAC Summit will pay particular attention to the protection of human rights and the strengthening of democracy and the rule of law in Latin America, and that it will under no circumstances serve as an act of whitewashing authoritarian regimes.

Madam President, Commissioner, my best wishes for a speedy recovery for Commissioner Sinkevičius, who cannot be here with us today, although I am aware that in a few hours he will be meeting with the industry. I wish I'd done it earlier and done it more often, because fishermen can't be your enemies. Enough that absolutely all the measures that you take with the most varied excuses, most of them of an environmental nature, result in harm to fishermen. He hasn't given us any answers. Why have they adopted this regulation that prohibits fishing unfairly in 87 areas? Why, if they are based on a 2016 regulation, do they adopt the implementing act six years later in the worst possible way and at the worst possible time? Given that ICES will present a new scientific study shortly, why can't they wait a few more weeks and issue an implementing act that reflects the reality of the sector and thus avoid the enormous damage they are doing to it? Are they going to set up any system of aid to alleviate the damage that their untimely decision is causing to fishermen? Although the Regulation does not distinguish, if the scientific opinion acknowledges that you do not have data on gears, such as longlines, why have you included all gears without distinction? Why have they not taken into account that two of the four countries concerned voted against in the Council and nine abstained? Doesn't this result require at least some reflection? Does it also not require a reflection that the plenary of this Parliament has regretted and requested the withdrawal of the implementing act? Do you really think that moving a large number of boats from one area to another is not going to mean greater overfishing and overfishing in those areas? Is this how they will protect vulnerable maritime areas? Why do they not already suspend this act and prevent it from having to go to court? Don't you think that actions like this cause citizens to lose their trust in the European institutions? Commissioner, please respond to these concerns. Fishermen deserve, at least, answers.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, I believe that today is a day when European citizens are going to believe a little more in us. They will see that our decisions, which they often consider remote, affect them very directly in their day to day. We are talking about the arrival of the single and universal charger for all mobile phones, something unthinkable not so long ago. After so many years in which we have had to look for different chargers for different phones and devices, we will finally see that a single charger will work for any mobile phone, but it will also be for tablets, for cameras, headphones, consoles, laptops and other devices. We are not just talking about reducing waste or lowering costs. Above all, it benefits all citizens, who will be able to buy their phones with or without charger and will not have to carry different chargers. In addition, it will be done in a reasonable time. In nine months it will be in effect for most devices. This measure demonstrates, once again, that we in Parliament contribute to the greater well-being of Europeans and continue to bet on new technologies. And that is a path that we must not abandon. Congratulations!

Madam President, on Monday, an implementing act of the European Commission enters into force, which is a deadly blow to the Spanish fishing sector, one more blow. I sincerely believe that the Commission has exceeded its powers and we also have doubts as to whether, on the other hand, the relevant and most up-to-date scientific reports have been taken into account. The Commission says yes, that it does so with the data sent to it and that it did not provide it with more up-to-date data. The Member States, in particular Spain, say yes, that they provided them. In any case, the situation is very serious. The Commission has to explain with data and dates whether the duties have been done and whether the regulations have been complied with. Also if there has been some kind of negligence that has caused us to find ourselves in this situation. In any case, whoever is responsible, those who are certainly not responsible are our fishermen, and that is why a solution must be given now. The application of this act can and should be suspended and must be suspended before Monday.

Madam President, I would like to thank my fellow shadow rapporteurs, as well as the Council Presidency and the Commission, for the agreement we have reached on the transposition into European Union law of the tuna management measures adopted at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. There is an important European Union fleet operating in this part of the planet which is a world champion in sustainability and which also provides consumers in the European Union with high-quality nutritious fish proteins, which at the same time brings socio-economic benefits to European Union businesses and coastal communities, and which contributes to the local economy and the sustainable development of the fisheries sector in the area. The strategic importance of the European Union's presence in third countries is therefore multiple: benefits operators and consumers in the European Union as well as the sustainability and good governance of the oceans. The European Union, through the Commission, which I would like to commend here, is a leader in these international fora. When it comes to transposing into the European Union the decisions taken in such international fora after lengthy negotiations, the main problem for me and my group is to ensure that they are transposed as faithfully as possible in order to establish a level playing field for all operators fishing in the same area and marketing their products on the European Union market. If the European Union imposes stricter measures on its national fleet, it loses competitiveness vis-à-vis foreign operators. Ensuring equal conditions for all, while promoting the European Union's high sustainability standards in regional fisheries management organisations and other international fora, is crucial for our operators and for improving international ocean governance. Another issue I would like to mention is the need to transpose the agreements of these organizations as quickly as possible. I think we're all committed to this. For me the key is to find the right balance between the need to go fast, but, at the same time, make things work well. First of all, I believe that we need to move forward at the stage at which the Commission draws up its proposal. In this respect, the Commission proposal sometimes comes late to the co-legislators. We need to improve on this. The second issue on which we need to improve is the quality of the Commission's proposal. The proposal often goes beyond what is decided in RFMOs. This is so, even if they don't like it very much that we remind them of it. But looking at what has happened to the Commission's Implementing Act closing 87 areas, exceeding its powers and failing to take account of socio-economic as well as environmental aspects, it is easy to understand why we are increasingly sceptical about empowering the Commission. Therefore, yes to ambitious measures; Yes to the rapid implementation of international agreements, but always looking for the right balance to ensure a level playing field for all operators and, in any case, always respecting the role of each institution in the decision-making process.

Madam President, first of all, I wish Commissioner Sinkevičius a speedy recovery. Fighting for sustainable and competitive aquaculture in the European Union is the way forward. Aquaculture provides consumers with sustainable, high-quality products. However, although aquaculture maintains a steady growth rate worldwide, it has not yet reached its full potential in the European Union. The development of aquaculture in the European Union is stalled and we need to give it a boost. Our group cares, and a lot. The People's Party led a report on aquaculture proposing 92 actions, including simplifying administrative procedures, ensuring fairness in interaction with other sectors, improving the competitiveness of aquaculture within and beyond our borders, improving consumer information, better promotion and communication campaigns, supporting research and innovation, and ensuring adequate information. These are fundamental elements and the report we will be voting on tomorrow calls on the Commission to work closely with the Member States to implement these actions. Let's do it like this. Gestures matter too, and we were able to include aquaculture in the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. That was important, too.

Madam President, we are talking about managing the world's oceans and their resources to make them healthy and productive for the benefit of current and future generations. Nothing more laudable, but it must be done in a balanced way. We note how the Commission's action in this context sometimes has perverse and undesirable effects on both EU operators and the environment. I am thinking of something that has already been said: in the Commission’s recent decision to close 87 areas in the Atlantic, where vulnerable marine ecosystems apparently exist – or are likely to exist – but without taking other aspects into account and leading to the ruin of thousands of fishing families and the mooring of important segments of the European fleet. And we cannot accept this. On the other hand, the stricter the measures taken by the European Union for fisheries and aquaculture, the more we depend on imported products and the more our competitiveness vis-à-vis third countries with poor management and governance is diminished. Let's make environmental sustainability possible, but also socio-economic sustainability. That's the challenge.

Madam President, Commissioner, the fifth resolution on Nicaragua and the situation is only getting worse every day in that country. Yesterday we had the opportunity to hear from Felix Madariaga's wife the horror they are experiencing: the Ortega y Murillo regime has long since exceeded all limits; However, in recent weeks we have continued to add and have witnessed obscene images, such as the display of political prisoners in front of the cameras, the repression against free journalism, and now also against the Catholic Church. The capture of Bishop Rolando Alvarez, the most critical voice within the Catholic hierarchy, shows that this despotic regime has no qualms about further deepening the rift with the international community. In the face of this dramatic situation, let's not be naive: We know that the Ortega y Murillo regime is not going to dialogue, as it has already shown on many occasions. We must act with all possible tools and increase sanctions on the regime's accomplices. I reiterate the need to activate the democratic clause of the Association Agreement and suspend any trade agreement with Nicaragua: We have to isolate this dictatorship, it is what is expected of us.

Mr. President, next Monday will be one year since the eruption of the Cumbre Vieja volcano on my island of La Palma. For eighty-five days, lava buried homes and roads, razed water infrastructure and crops, and, even worse, ended the dreams and illusions of many palm trees who lost everything. They were also months of solidarity and many promises, but, let us not deceive ourselves, the reconstruction of La Palma will never be possible without those promises, the official ones, being translated into deeds. The Island Council and the municipalities alone cannot; the President of the Government of Spain promised in each of his visits to the island economic aid that not only has not just arrived, but is also insufficient; The same applies to the Government of the Canary Islands and even to Europe, from which only an advance from the European Union Solidarity Fund has been received so far. Palm trees want fair solutions, they need to recover part of their lives; It is the future of an entire island, Isla Bonita, that is at stake: that we don't forget.

Mr President, Commissioner, the resolutions of the regional fisheries management organisations that we are debating today have been agreed after lengthy negotiations, although systematically the Commission's proposal in transposing these agreements tends to go a little further. No one is against taking ambitious measures to manage fisheries. However, ambitious measures must be agreed and implemented by all. EU fishermen should not always be the ones to foot the bill for such overly ambitious and unilateral EU measures. The goal of having an exemplary European fleet is laudable but our fleet is increasingly losing competitiveness. The stricter the measures taken by the European Union, the more we depend on imported products. Agreements in RFMOs should be strictly transposed, ensuring identical conditions for all while promoting the EU’s high sustainability standards for all foreign fleets.