A pivotal vote is due to take place today as EU Member States vote on proposals to establish zero-fishing zones accounting for 10% of EU waters. The industry states that such a closure would serve to hit political targets without protecting ecologically sensitive habitats, describing the Commission’s strategy as a ‘shot in the dark.’
The Commission’s proposal is for a new objective which aims to place 10% of the EU’s seabed in ‘reference areas’ free from any human pressure in order to assess its natural variability.
The European Bottom Fishing Alliance (EBFA) wants to see a postponement of the vote, given the lack of any impact assessment on fishing activities, the upcoming revision of the Law setting these objectives, and the current transitory political period with EU Parliamentary elections about to take place.
According to EBFA, the Commission is proposing a giant experiment with areas covering 10% of the EU maritime territory as a control sample to implement an ill-defined EU law. This is the old EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) from 2008 which aims to protect the marine environment and achieve good environmental status (GES) in all sea basins, measured according to different qualitative indicators. In the absence of pre-existing scientific recommendations of what could constitute a GES, scientific experts have not been able to clearly define parameters and indicators associated with this objective.
‘Given the operational impossibility of achieving the objectives of this old Directive, the European Commission should have initiated a new debate with the European institutions instead of experimenting with policies,’ said EBFA chair Iván López.
‘This is especially relevant given the fact that the Commission opened a consultation process at the end of 2021 to revise the Directive. Considering the absence of solid scientific support for this approach, this experiment cannot be called anything else but a shot in the dark.’
The industry has critizised inconsistencies with other fundamental environmental policies such as Natura 2000 or Nature Restoration Law, under which criteria and definition of an ecosystem in ‘good’ condition are different. EBFA states that there is no scientifically supported target for species richness and population sizes to measure the success of the MSFD.
‘So decisions seem to be driven purely on political arbitrariness,’ Iván López said.
‘The Commission is now proposing something that was at the heart of the EU political debate such as banning bottom fishing in 30% of our seas, an idea that was disregarded by the EU co-legislators: the Parliament and the Council of the EU. This is a Council that is currently blocking the Nature Restoration Law for not taking into account farmers and fishers views neither food production.’
EBFA points out that no socio-economic impact assessment has been conducted, once again, despite this being a clear legal requirement, and the fact that the proposal will inevitably affect all fishing companies and the supply chain.
‘In the context of the upcoming European Parliament elections, it is clear that the current push, including the proposed evaluation of the CFP, is politically motivated. These decisions should be made by the new Commission after the elections, based on a new political mandate and analysed by the new Parliament,’ Iván López said.
‘To do it now, foregoing any democratic scrutiny by the Parliament and under the direction of an outgoing Commissioner that is a candidate for the next Parliament makes us fear that the only reason behind this is political and to set up a fierce debate against the new mandate provided by the European people after the elections.’
