With the delivery of its new EU Action Plan, the European Commission has turned a blind eye to its own fisheries management system by championing a gradual phase out of bottom mobile gears in 30% of the region’s waters, according to the European Bottom Fisheries Alliance (EBFA).
Through the proposal, Brussels has put 25% of EU fish production and 7,000 vessels at risk, the alliance said.
With these vessels generating around 38% of the EU fleet’s total revenues, the policy will devastate entire EU fishing communities, insists EBFA. It believes there will be one clear beneficiary: non-EU bottom trawlers, which will be able to increase their seafood exports into the EU to fill the gap left by the EU fleet.
The Action Plan is part of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, with the Commission calling on member states to gradually phase out bottom mobile gears in all marine protected areas (MPAs) by 2030 at the latest and to not allow it in any newly-established MPAs.
In a statement, EBFA Chair Iván López van der Veen said the alliance appreciates the efforts made by DG MARE to channel this process through regionalisation, instead of proposing a legally binding law at EU level, but that the political mandate is clear and leaves member states in an extremely weak position since any new MPA designation will automatically exclude bottom fishing, no matter what science says.
“Also, given the fact that this is not an EU law, citizens and companies affected have no right to go to court to protect them from the disproportionate impact of the action plan, leaving them defenceless. Our plea is for the Council and the European Parliament to stop this nonsense. Member states such as France and Spain have successful and praised MPA management models that will be rendered useless, discarding overnight a model based on full cooperation and integration of all stakeholders.”
EBFA therefore considers the prohibition by default of bottom mobile gears in MPAs as disproportionate, unjustified, not based on the best available science and contrary to international commitments.
“MPAs offer different degrees of protection and may be established for the conservation of other natural resources such as mammals, birds or turtles, not the seabed. Then why punishing and banning a perfectly regulated activity that does not disturb the conservation of the habitat or species that precisely justify the MPA? Management measures are adapted to each local case, which differs from the broad-brush approach taken by the Commission, imposing blanket bans,” López said.
EBFA also warned that the EU is already heavily dependent on whitefish imports caught by bottom trawlers from third-countries and that the action plan will increase that reliance.
