Following an angry debate on Monday, MEPs voted yesterday to end electrical fishing in Europe. This was a surprise turn of events, as a vote in favour of an outright ban had been seen as unlikely.
A couple of amendments concerning electrical had been added to a an extensive set of legislation put before the European Parliament that among other things is expected to result in simplified rules concerning fishing gears and minimum landing sizes, while also introducing greater levels of regional flexibility to fisheries regulation within the EU with possibilities opened to tailor regulations to local circumstances, plus regulation designed to outlaw highgrading.
But it was the pulse fishing amendments that everyone was watching out for as MEPs voted in Strasbourg. The vote followed on from an impassioned debate the previous day, which also follows a long round of campaigning by both opponents and supporters of pulse fishing with passions running high on both sides.
MEPs voted to pass the amendment by 402 votes to 232, with 40 abstentions. The outcome has been welcomed by green groups and fishermen in France and the UK, but represents a serious blow to the Dutch flatfish sector.
Reactions to the European Parliament’s vote from environmental groups have mainly welcomed this development, while generally condemning the rest of the legislation as a failure to protect stocks and wildlife. French pressure group Bloom, which campaigned hard against pulse fishing, has expressed its delight at the outcome, as have fishermen’s groups in France and the UK.
“This outcome has major consequences for many family businesses in the fishing industry,” said Pim Visser of VisNed, who commented that in recent weeks there had been indications that MEPs would be inclined to vote against pulse fishing, the expectation was not that the result would be a total ban. Instead a limitation that would have brought the fleet back to the original 5% (22 vessels) had been seen as a likely outcome.
The vote by MEPs now sets the European Parliament at odds with the European Commission, which has been in favour of continuing trials with pulse fishing – and while MEPs have sent a clear message, the next step is negotiations that will have to take place between the European Parliament, Council and the Commission before a suitable regulation can be drafted.
The Parliament’s determination to end pulse fishing represents a clear blow to the Dutch fishing industry that has over the last two decades invested heavily in both research and equipment to develop pulse fishing as an alternative to conventional beam trawling. During the years of exceptionally high fuel prices, the switch to pulse fishing was a lifeline for many operators who would otherwise have had little choice but to either diversify even further or leave the industry.
The Dutch industry has repeatedly argued its case that pulse trawling reduces fuel costs and by-catches by around half, while the size of the fleet has also been reduced by approximately 50%.
“Each pulse fisherman has invested heavily in this innovative gear. Switching back to conventional gear is a financial trap for many fishing companies, precisely because of the fuel consumption that pulse fishing had halved. These fishermen and their families are the ones who will now be presented with the bill for this,” said Durk Van Tuinen of the Dutch Fishermen’s Association.
According to the North Sea Foundation, pulse trawling as a relatively new technique has the potential to contribute to more sustainable fisheries.
“The risks and opportunities are in need of further research, therefore it’s unfortunate that the European Parliament draws this tough line before the research is concluded,” the North Sea Foundation states, while commenting that the Dutch government should have been more prudent with the pulse derogations in the past. “While we recognise that the Dutch government has been reckless in its persistent pursuit of pulse licenses, the fisheries sector should not be punished for developing and implementing innovations; this would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Increasing the sustainability of the fishing industry is as necessary as it is complex. In the coming years innovation will be essential for developing fishing techniques that minimise ecosystem damage while simultaneously being profitable for fishermen.”
The Foundation’s opinion is that pulse techniques have the potential to play a valuable role in the transition to sustainable fisheries in the North Sea.
“Therefore, the true risks of pulse fishing for the marine environment must be made clear once and for all. Innovative fishing methods should only be allowed if they have less ecological impact than existing techniques. Whether or not this is the case should be determined by independent scientific research. The ban the European Parliament now desires could put a stop to this research. Additionally, there is a risk that a possible ban puts the brakes on the will to innovate in the fisheries sector – at a time where innovation is needed to establish a healthy sea and sustainable fisheries,” the Foundation states.
“We call upon the fishermen not to be discouraged from embracing further innovation. We remain committed, together with the Dutch fishermen and government, to promote sustainable innovation in fisheries.”
