A new EU fisheries rule creates a loophole, allowing exemptions for Listed Ports, raising concerns over transparency, compliance, and overfishing risks
Exemptions for Listed Ports Spark Concerns Over Transparency and Fairness
The European Commission’s Control Regulation of 22 November 2023 was introduced to tighten fisheries management by enforcing stricter catch reporting. A key provision, Article 14, seeks to improve selectivity by implementing a Margin of Tolerance (MoT) rule, requiring vessels to report catches with no more than a 10% species-specific discrepancy.
However, on 24 May 2024, the Commission adopted an Implementing Act—without consulting Advisory Councils—that creates a significant loophole. This act grants exemptions to vessels landing at certain designated Listed Ports, effectively allowing them to bypass the stricter reporting requirements. The exemption, which applies to small pelagic fisheries, industrial fisheries, and tropical tuna purse seine fisheries, raises serious concerns about fairness, compliance, and the risk of overfishing.
A Loophole That Benefits Large-Scale Industrial Fisheries
Despite the stricter regulations introduced by the Control Regulation, the Implementing Act weakens the rule by allowing vessels at Listed Ports to avoid species-level reporting requirements. DG Mare has confirmed that nine applications for Listed Port status have been submitted by Member States, but the specific locations remain undisclosed.
This exemption disproportionately benefits large vessels landing high-volume, low-value catches—particularly in the fishmeal sector—allowing them to bypass stricter reporting requirements. This puts other fleet segments at a competitive disadvantage and raises serious concerns about transparency and sustainability.
Repeating the Mistakes of the Landing Obligation?
The situation mirrors the failed implementation of the Landing Obligation (LO), a policy intended to eliminate fish discards at sea. Quotas were increased based on the assumption that all fish would be landed, but weak enforcement allowed discarding to persist, leading to inflated quotas and worsening stock depletion.
A similar scenario is unfolding with the new MoT rule. While the Commission assumes that Listed Ports will uphold high monitoring standards—potentially through CCTV and other measures—there is little evidence to suggest this will be effectively enforced. Instead, the exemption risks enabling continued misreporting.
Calls for Transparency and Stronger Enforcement
The lack of transparency surrounding the Listed Ports exemption raises serious concerns. Key questions remain unanswered:
- Why were certain ports granted Listed Port status?
- What monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance?
- How will enforcement differ between Member States?
Without additional safeguards, this exemption undermines the very purpose of the regulation, allowing large-scale industrial operations to exploit the system while other fishers remain subject to stricter controls. To maintain credibility, the Commission must:
- Publish the list of Listed Ports and the criteria used for selection.
- Implement additional safeguards to prevent species misreporting.
- Enforce measures that encourage selectivity rather than enable misreporting.
Conclusion: A Step Forward, Two Steps Back
The European Commission has introduced stronger catch reporting rules but simultaneously created a loophole that weakens their effectiveness. Rushing through an exemption for vessels with vast, unsorted mixed catches just months after the Control Regulation entered into force is questionable—particularly when advances in environmental DNA (eDNA) now allow for accurate species composition identification at a fraction of the cost of traditional control methods.
By granting preferential treatment to these vessels—many of which supply fishmeal to non-EU markets—the Commission risks undermining its own policy goals. Unless immediate action is taken to address this loophole, the new MoT rule could repeat past mistakes, leading to continued mismanagement of fish stocks and giving unfair advantages to large-scale industrial fishers. Greater transparency and enforcement are necessary to prevent history from repeating itself.
Source