As the EU navigates towards the final stages of the 2019-2024 legislative period, Europêche has addressed and exchanged views with Member States on the future structure of the European Commission and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) – at a time when widespread frustration from a variety of sectors concerning food policies is becoming louder.
Europe’s fishing industry is demanding a reset of the CFP’s objectives, strengthening the focus on socio-economic and food security dimensions, and ensuring that European fishing remains internationally competitive. Member States are also urged to send a strong signal against the Norway’s on EU fishing rights by rejecting the EEA Financial Mechanism 2021-2028.
There’s no shortage of concerns on the European fishing sector’s mind, not least the imbalance between environmental and fisheries policies within the European Commission’s portfolio and policies. Last year fishermen protested across the EU against the increasing area closures and the Commission proposal to phase out bottom fishing – now Europe’s farmers are protesting against shared concerns regarding excessive EU regulations, pricing pressures, and the EU support to cheap imports with increasing tax derogations.
Europêche’s position is that the EU needs to return to a model where primary food production is placed high in the Commission’s agenda and structure – separate from environment – and this needs to happen in the next mandate of the European Commission (2024-2029).
Alongside this, the industry Europêche and the Chair of the European Bottom Fishing Alliance reiterated their criticism from the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee towards the Commission’s Action Plan to protect marine ecosystems.
This strategy has been criticised as being over-simplistic, lacking a foundation in the best available science, while neglecting focus on food security, and lacking an impact assessment. The criticism extends to the plan’s lack a legal basis, with the result that the European Commission appears to be attempting to legislate through a back door route.
Europêche also has deep concerns about the UK implementing Marine Protected Areas in its waters, exceeding the recommendations of scientists and mainly impeding the operations of EU fishing vessels.
‘The European Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, must ensure that the designation of MPAs within the UK’s jurisdiction is non-discriminatory, science-based and proportionate,’ a Europêche representative commented.
‘We firmly believe that the Commission should take this issue seriously and utilise all measures provided within the TCA to rectify the situation. Conservation objectives should never be employed as a means to restrict EU access to UK waters, preventing EU vessels from catching their rightful fishing quotas.’
There’s a deep dissatisfaction with Norway’s aggressive stance on EU fishing interests, and Europêche cites as examples Norway’s unlawful cod grabs, bans on traditional EU fishing methods in Norway’s waters and setting excessive, unjustified unilaterally mackerel quotas, leading to overfishing.
Europêche calls on Member States to block the EEA agreement and stop the continuation of tax derogations to Norway’s fisheries products entering the EU market. Europêche advocates for the EEA agreement to incorporate a direct link between trade access and fisheries management, similar to the arrangement in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) with the UK.
Digital tools monitoring failed policies
According to Europêche, a mandatory roll-out of CCTV in the EU will not suddenly make the landing obligation regime workable nor will it prevent unwanted catches from reaching the fishing nets. Same rationale applies to the mandatory introduction of engine power monitoring devices for certain vessels.
‘It is regrettable that new digital tools are implemented to monitor and survey failed policies. In this context, Europêche emphasises the need for collaborative and pragmatic approaches to address these issues and ensure the sector’s long-term viability,’ a representative commented, and voiced concerns over margins of tolerance within the new EU fisheries control system.
‘To implement the flexibilities granted by co-legislators, in its implementing act the Commission proposes to enforce stricter control measures in third countries than those applied in the EU, making it impossible to apply the flexibility in foreign ports, especially those located in developing countries. We are questioning why the Commission is imposing such unattainable measures to EU vessels, while having no issue in accepting fishery products landed by Asian vessels in the same foreign ports not subject to any of the proposed EU control rules.’
