The NSAC criticises proposed Belgian fishing bans, citing disproportionate economic impacts and regulatory inconsistency
Concerns Over Economic Viability
The North Sea Advisory Council (NSAC) has voiced concerns over a Belgian proposal to introduce new fisheries management measures in three areas within the Belgian Part of the North Sea (BPNS).
The proposal aims to protect bottom habitats and improve the environmental status of the area. However, the NSAC argues the measures, which cover 337.32 km² or 9.77% of the BPNS, are “disproportionate” and will have a “direct and severe impact” on fishing activities, particularly for the French fleet.
The council highlights that more than 50% of French fishing activity in Belgian waters is concentrated in the proposed zones. The ban on bottom gears would eliminate 88% of the value and 81% of the volume landed by French vessels operating in Belgium, directly threatening the viability of these artisanal fisheries.
The NSAC has requested the withdrawal of the proposed management measures, citing the potential for major socio-economic impacts and insufficient justification.
Questions of Proportionality and Scientific Justification
The NSAC’s advice questions the justification for the proposed measures, noting that one of the areas, Zone 1, is not part of a Natura 2000 conservation site and therefore lacks specific legal conservation obligations.
The council stresses the importance of having a clear legal basis and solid scientific evidence to support such restrictive measures, in line with EU law and the principle of proportionality.
The paper also flags that passive fishing activities have been marginal since 2016, and no robust link has been established between their use and any decline in gravel habitats.
It also notes that the positioning of Zone 1 is “terrible for trawling” and “has much more negative impact due the positioning” as it is the only safe fishing area near traffic lanes.
Unassessed Displacement and Cumulative Effects
The NSAC expresses concern that the Belgian proposal has not fully assessed the risks of displacing fishing effort. The displacement could lead to increased competition between fleets, higher pressure on available resources, and reduced profitability for fishermen.
This problem is compounded by the parallel closure of 43 UK Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which will create “unprecedented cumulative effects” on fisheries in the Eastern Channel and the North Sea. The NSAC states that closing new areas without a thorough assessment of the impacts on each fleet segment amounts to “neglecting the profession and its strategic role”.
Regulatory Inconsistency and Technological Advancements
The advisory council points out a significant inconsistency in Belgian marine policy. While the authorities describe gravel habitats as “extremely sensitive,” the government has designated the 285 km² “Princess Elisabeth Zone” for offshore renewable energy directly on these habitats.
The NSAC argues it is contradictory to authorise the permanent alteration of the seabed for a wind farm while simultaneously banning artisanal fishing, which has a “punctual and limited” impact.
Finally, the NSAC highlights that the Belgian proposal overlooks technological improvements in trawling, such as “rock hopper” and “lighter rigs,” which significantly reduce pressure on the seabed.
The council argues that banning trawling disregards the fleet’s modernisation efforts and the potential for these new tools to contribute to sustainable fisheries.
