 to see if anyone objects to the fact that our Point 12, that's the next opinion, is the first point tomorrow. This been agreed with the rapporteur so if there is no opposition Point 12 is going for tomorrow. Now let's move to Point 11, the common fisheries policy on the ground towards sustainable and resilient coastal communities in the EU. It's a non-initiative opinion. Rapporteur Jesús Caballo Aller, you have the floor for five minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. President. First of all, I want to say that I am going to speak in Gallejo, in my own language, and I will now put my thanks to the interpreters. I also want to thank the people who are staying in this night session to listen to issues on the common fisheries policy. Next, I have the opportunity to present my initiative on fishing. I have been working from my region, from Galicia, with title to the common fishery policy on the ground towards sustainable and resilient coastal communities in the EU. It is a very expected package of measures, because the current regulation of the common fishery policy, which was held in 2013, was expected to be a valuation before the end of 2022. Let's take a look at a moment of reflection on the future of the common fishery policy, although the voice of the regions and the municipalities must be heard. My region, Galicia, is located at the head of the European Union in terms of capture, weight or consumption of European fleet, and shares in that other regions, depending on fishing and aquaculture, I'm sorry. May I ask for some silence, please? The session is still ongoing. Don't make it harder. Thank you, President. My region, as I said, is located at the head of the Union in terms of capture and weight or consumption of European fleet, and shares in that other regions, depending on fishing and aquaculture, and on the future of the sector, are facing a series of challenges that put in danger their sustainability and sustainability in the long term. This was the main reason that led us to lead this dictatorship, what we wanted to plasm a regional and local vision that contributes to design a future fishing policy, making us one of the main concerns that incumben, that incumben in the region before you fall with respect to the rotting fence, its wounded by the Commission. The purpose of PPC, such as the Lisbon Treaty, is to ensure sustainability in the long term of fishing and aquaculture in Europe, the availability of food administrations, is a life-threatening level for the workers in Domar. We can say that PPC, in a certain way, is a precursor to the green pact of Europe. I know that it combines objectives of sustainability, environmental, social, economic, in order to preserve, or socio-economic, the coastal and regional communities. Therefore, we firmly believe that the current PPC policy should be applied in a way that compels the original objective, guarantee sustainability of those fishing activities and acquire them in the long term. Not only from an environmental point of view, but also from a perspective of economic development, social, two-sector, and two actors that accompany it. Allow me to insist on this fundamental idea. It is essential to recover the balance between the economic, social, and environmental risks. Let us not forget that we are doing our job in which any measure should be based on scientific and consolidated evidence in systems that take accessible and broad data. We are watching with concern for a characterization of the Arrastre fishing as a harmful art, knowing that not all deep arts have the same impact. Or Arraste, employed in adequate areas, can have positive effects, such as land or agricultural land. On the other hand, this fishing method has a vital economic importance for many European coastal regions, in many species or can be captured through Arrastre. On the other hand, it is essential that this policy defines its objectives in a clear way, ensuring that these respond to both specific characteristics of the different regions of the European Union, as well as the interests of the sector. Therefore, we are doing a challenge to adopt this policy of a necessary framework of greater organic autonomy, intended for a private boat, for the Maritimo Pesqueiro area, a next European Commission. Undoubtedly, a necessary transition from a sustainable fishing to a neutral environmental level in the fundamental mission. But for this transition to have a place with guarantees and facilities, it cannot fall short of a private initiative. It is essential to ensure more financial opportunities with investment and research, for development and clean technologies, in alternative fuels to adapt the fishing sector to an energy transition. Thank you. And to finish, there are two lines, Mr. President. Two seconds. I would like to re-indicate the fundamental role that regional teachers and local residents have in order to implement the future application of fishing policy. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Member Kirsten Biele, one minute. I wasn't expecting to get the word because of the timing, but it's okay. You don't have to, don't feel compelled. It's fine, I have my one minute, so... Well, if you insist, go ahead. It is important that there is fish in the sea and in our lakes and rivers. It demands that we pass on both water and fish and biodiversity in the water. We fully understand that the coastline is under great pressure. Also, this pressure is not that we should have high ambitions and standards for the environment. It speaks of our lack of attention on the natural resources. So it is almost necessary for a whole-heartedly and ambitious effort to protect the habitats in the sea. Because in that way, we are best long-term secure, successful and resistant to coastal communities. This statement about fishing is, in our opinion, not enough weight on the connection between the environment and the existence of fisheries. Therefore, we think it is important to keep an eye on the climate change that is taking place from the green. And we also want to keep an eye on whether they will vote against it, because it will give our silence to the final report. Member Gallaghani, one minute. Long time no see. No. I didn't hear you calling my name, sorry. I welcome pleasure. This is part of the Minister's colleagues' opinion, in particular from Tuscany, which is a region where fishing is an important resource. There needs to be a common policy on fishing, which, however, keeps in mind, particularly fishermen, in the formation of the decision-making process. I agree with the Minister's colleagues that we need our policies to be based on updated data, and on this purpose it could be useful for a dedicated observer to collect updated data and put them at the disposal of the decision-maker. On this purpose, however, it is necessary that all fishermen, regardless of their regular standards, not only fishermen, but all global operators, because they need to avoid the import of derived products from non-transparent fishing activities, which compromise the competitiveness of our sector. In the last instance, and I conclude, we ask Kautela, with respect to the invitation to promote the harmonization of the stocks in all production countries of fishing products. The member states must maintain their ability to adopt fishing policies suitable for their needs. Thank you. Member Roden, you have one minute. You have the floor. Thank you for the word. I think that what I would like to say in this case is a hope that this opinion will be dismissed, because what we are seeing in this with bundtrolling is really, really, really bad to our environment. Not only is it destroying the livelihoods of our fish, but it's also destroying our climate, because our seas are capturing so much CO2. And every time we trawl these seas, all these CO2 are coming up, destroying our seas because they're getting more sour, but also destroying our global environment. So I hope that everybody will vote against this decision. Thank you. I don't have any other request for the floor. Rapporteur, you have three minutes to final remarks. Thank you very much, President. Come here. At this moment, we are giving a regional response, a local regional response, to a series of proposals from the European Commission, some of which don't have a normative nature, and some of which have a strong impact on the sector of fishing and aquaculture. This will refer to, for example, the plan of action for the preservation of marine ecosystems, or to the importance of the energy transition in the fishing sector. Therefore, the issue is of sufficient importance so that we don't re-indicate an authentic reform of the common fishing policy, because that would give rise to a debate that is more daring, more intense, and above all more transparent with the participation of the entire sector. We also, let's not say that we have to fulfill the green pact of Europe in this sector. Naturally, we do. We must arrive in the year 1950 with neutrality and climate change. But for this to be achieved, we must do it right. Otherwise, this will not be possible. And that is why we propose the measures that we propose in this world. If I were to think that fishing for all the seas, for all the seas, for example, I would be thinking of dismantling the sector of fishing and aquaculture. Therefore, I would not be sitting here this afternoon. What we have to do is to balance the environmental dimension with the economic dimension to guarantee a dignified job for our fishermen, a job that also, in respect of its quality of life, speaks of food aid to Europe and which is also an attractive activity for the new generations. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Amendment 4, who votes against? Abstention adopted. Amendment 5, who votes against? Abstention adopted. Amendment 6 was redrawn, right? Amendment 6 was redrawn. It's not from the repertoire. Amendment 7, who votes against? Abstention adopted. Amendment 8, who votes against? Abstention adopted. Amendment 9, who votes against? Abstention adopted. Amendment 10, who votes against? Thank you. Abstention adopted. Amendment 11, who votes against? Thank you. Abstention, who votes for? Amendment 11 rejected. Rejected, amendment 12, who votes against? Adopted, amendment 13, who votes against? Rejected, amendment 14, who votes against? Adopted, amendment 15, who votes against? Adopted, amendment 16 has been redrawn. So 16 and 16 are redrawn. Amendment 17, who votes against? Thank you. Abstuction, who votes for? Amendments 17, rejected. Amendment 18, who votes against? Thank you. Abstention, rejected. Amendment 19, who votes against? Thank you. Abstention adopted. Amendment 20, who votes against? Amendment 20, who votes against, adopted. Amendment 21, who votes against, rejected. Amendment 22, who votes against, adopted. Amendment 23, who votes against, adopted. Amendment 24, who votes against, abstention. Who votes for, amendment 24, adopted. Amendment 25, who votes against, adopted. Amendment 26, who votes against, thank you, adopted. Amendment 27, who votes against, adopted. Amendment 28, who votes against, rejected. Amendment 29, who votes against, adopted. Amendment 30, who votes against, thank you, rejected. final vote on the opinion, who votes against the opinion. Thank you. Abstention, the opinion was adopted. Thank you so much. Congratulations to the rapporteur. Dear friends.