Marine environmental NGO Bloom has lodged a formal complaint to the European Commission that the Dutch authorities gave large subsidies of EU money to enable the Dutch beam trawl fleet to switch to electric pulse fishing that it did not declare, reports Tim Oliver.
Bloom alleges that the Dutch government failed to publish data detailing public subsidies that it claims were allocated to Dutch beamers between 2007 and 2014. Bloom also accused the European Commission of “barely-masked complicity” with the Netherlands over the lack of transparency in publishing details of the alleged undeclared subsidies during this period.
The Commission and fishermen’s organisation VisNed have defended electric pulse beaming and rejected claims of financial impropriety,
Bloom, based in Paris and headed by Claire Nouvian, is fighting to get electric pulse beaming banned in EU waters. The group, which is leading an international campaign of NGOs and several inshore fishermen’s organisations including Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE), filed a formal complaint to the European Commission in October last year alleging that most of the 84 licences so far awarded to the Dutch pulse beam fleet are illegal.
There is a ban on all forms of electric fishing in EU waters but the Commission has granted a derogation that allows 5% of a member state’s beam trawl fleet to use electric fishing for research purposes. This would allow about 15 of the Dutch beamer fleet to use the method but there are currently 84 licensed to fish using electricity, around a third of the fleet.
Members of the European Parliament voted in January by a large majority (402 to 232) to reinstate the ban on electric beaming when voting on the new EU technical measures regulation.
A trilogue debate is now underway between the Parliament, Commission and Council on the future of pulse beaming.
The Bloom-led coalition claims electric fishing leaves areas barren and is threatening the livelihoods of inshore fishermen on both sides of the southern North Sea and eastern English Channel. They say pulse fishing “shames Europe” and that a decision in December 2006 to lift the ban was “arbitrary, harmful and illegitimate”. It said: “The European Commission has a duty to repair the problems it has created.”
The campaigners claim the Dutch government and the Commission colluded to encourage the Dutch beam trawl fleet to switch to electric fishing. They claim the high fuel costs of conventional beaming were threatening to bankrupt the fleet and that the switch to electric beaming is a commercial project masquerading as research.
But an EU official told World Fishing that the Commission's new proposal on pulse fishing was based on independent scientific advice. The scientific advice from ICES and STECF dated 2016 and 2012 respectively had given enough evidence to remove the limit on the number of vessels that can use pulse fishing.
The official said electric fishing – if properly controlled – “may offer a more ecologically benign alternative way of fishing by reducing unwanted by-catch, reducing seabed damage and lowering CO2 emissions. The conventional way of fishing by beam trawling has proven to have a negative impact on the ecosystems.”
The official also pointed out that regulations allow vessels to use other types of gear in pilot projects to reduce unwanted catches so as to comply with the landings obligation. Pulse gear can be used in this context without explicit approval being required, although member states must notify the Commission of such projects.
Bloom said the Commission had only now responded to its first complaint against pulse beaming. It wrote on 13 April 2018 that it had referred Bloom’s first complaint (filed in October 2017) to the ‘EU Pilot’ – a system that allows ‘an informal exchange of information between the Commission and the member state concerned’.
But Claire Nouvian dismissed this as a “pseudo-procedure” that enables the Commission to avoid launching formal infringement proceedings. She said: “It’s almost a public admission of its bias in favour of those who trample on European law. The Commission is the Guardian of the Treaties, it is supposed to be politically independent.”
In its second formal complaint over alleged ‘hidden’ subsidies, the Bloom-led coalition says the failure to declare subsidies is “a major financial scandal”. It says the 2007-2014 period when the alleged undeclared subsidies were paid was when “the vast majority” of conversions to electric pulse beaming took place.
Using public data from 2015 onwards that the Netherlands has made available Bloom has calculated that the Dutch pulse fleet has received €5.7m of public money since then.
Frédéric Le Manach, Bloom’s scientific director said: “Since August 2015 alone, the Netherlands has distributed almost €6m to its electric fishing vessels – but the vast majority of conversions took place between 2007 and 2014. This suggests that a large-scale financial scandal is looming, in addition to the ecological, social and political scandal that we have revealed on this issue.”
“The Commission is currently in contact with the Dutch authorities to obtain additional information on their licensing regime to verify the respect of the rules,” a Commission spokesperson stated in response to Bloom’s allegations, adding that the legislative procedure would continue. “We hope that an acceptable agreement is found by the co-legislators.”
ICES will present its latest advice on pulse fishing on 30 May.
Open and transparent
Pim Visser, executive officer of Dutch fisheries organisation VisNed, defended pulse beaming and rejected Bloom’s allegations of hidden subsidies, which he said were “extremely serious”.
A fact sheet produced by VisNed claimed research had shown that pulse fishing reduced trawled areas by 20% and reduced seabed penetration of beam trawl gear. He said Bloom’s allegations that the method was creating large scale environmental and social damage were not backed by independent science.
Pim Visser said he had invited Bloom leaders to a meeting in London in November 2017 to discuss the allegedly fraudulent subsidies. He offered to share with them all information VisNed has available so that it could be compared with Bloom’s claims and to answer any questions BLOOM had.
“During the meeting I told them that only the first four vessels – and no others – that had installed the pulse gear in 2009/2010 had received a 30% national investment subsidy totalling €680,000. This was not EU money,” he said.
“As far as I know all the EFF spending by the Netherlands was audited and consequently reported by the Dutch authorities in an open and transparent manner on the internet, in accordance with the EU requirements. These spending reports were available on line for a period of two years from publication. As this is public information that will still be available on request.”
He said VisNed had not heard from Bloom since their meeting.
He said “open and transparent” international pulse dialogue meetings had been organised since 2015. They enabled all interested parties to ask questions listen to presentations and engage in debate. The next meeting is in Amsterdam on 19 June.
VisNed and the UK National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations also brokered a voluntary deal in January that pulse trawlers would not fish in any new areas they had not already fished and would stay out of defined areas of SE and eastern England.
