The EBFA believes that a vote tomorrow on fishing area closures before the European Parliament should be delayed until after elections
Brussels is set to witness a pivotal vote tomorrow that could reshape the future of fishing in the European Union. Member States will decide on a proposal to completely prohibit fishing in 10% of EU waters, a move the European Bottom Fishing Alliance (EBFA) warns could have severe socio-economic repercussions.
Concerns Over Food Sovereignty and Economic Impact
The EBFA has raised alarms about the potential socio-economic fallout of such a sweeping ban, urging Member States to prioritise food sovereignty. They have called for a postponement of the vote until after the European Parliament elections and the establishment of a new European Commission mandate. EBFA Chair Iván López stressed the lack of an impact assessment on fishing activities, highlighting the upcoming revision of the relevant law and the current transitional political period as reasons for delay. He states:
“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. 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.”
Regulatory Background and Scientific Uncertainty
The proposal is rooted in the 2008 EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which aims to protect the marine environment and achieve good environmental status (GES) across all sea basins. One of the directive’s 11 qualitative indicators focuses on ‘the integrity of the seabed.’ However, scientific experts have struggled to clearly define the parameters and indicators associated with this goal, leading to uncertainty and debate.
In response, the European Commission has suggested creating ‘reference areas’—zones free from human activity across 10% of EU waters—to measure natural variability and assess environmental status. This proposition has been described by the EBFA as a “giant experiment” due to the lack of solid scientific backing.
Inconsistencies with Other Environmental Policies
The fishing sector has criticised the proposal for its inconsistency with other environmental policies, such as Natura 2000 and the Nature Restoration Law, which have different criteria and definitions for ecosystems in ‘good’ condition. Without clear, scientifically supported targets for species richness and population sizes, the MSFD’s objectives appear politically driven rather than evidence-based.
Call for Comprehensive Impact Assessments
EBFA argues that the current proposal does not allow for prioritising specific habitats or considering the diverse impacts of different fishing gears. The prohibition would apply broadly to all bottom-contact fishing gear, regardless of their environmental impact. This blanket approach, the sector claims, is disproportionate, especially as vast areas are already being designated for offshore wind farms.
López lambasted the lack of a socio-economic impact assessment, which is legally required and crucial for understanding the proposal’s effects on fishing companies and the broader supply chain. He noted that the proposal revisits ideas previously dismissed by EU co-legislators, such as banning bottom fishing in 30% of EU seas.
Political Motivations and Democratic Scrutiny
In light of the upcoming European Parliament elections, López suggested that the timing of the vote is politically motivated. He argued that these significant decisions should be made by the new Commission and Parliament, based on a fresh political mandate. Conducting the vote now, under an outgoing Commissioner, undermines democratic scrutiny and risks provoking a contentious debate in the new political term.
López concludes by saying: “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. A Council that is currently blocking the Nature Restoration Law for not taking into account farmers and fishers views neither food production.’ Mr López continued: ‘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. 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.”
As the Member States prepare for the vote, the future of EU fishing hangs in the balance, with far-reaching implications for marine conservation, food security, and the fishing industry’s economic stability.
Source: Press Release