Ahead of final negotiations, EP takes position on future fisheries subsidies instrument
01 December 2013
The European Parliament plenary voted on the 2014–2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The next step will be to secure political agreement between co-legislators – the EP and the Council – by the end of the year, to allow the fund to be available from early 2014.
The EP rejected public aid for new vessel construction, a decision that was welcomed by the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, who added that “This will allow the EMFF to focus on funding projects which promote a sustainable future for the fishing industry and coastal communities.” She particularly welcomed that “All stakeholders should be able to benefit from support contributing to their participation in Advisory Councils.”
Europêche, the European fishing industry platform, cautiously welcomed the vote, and underlined fishers’ need for financial help to adapt to the changing regulatory environment: “We need aid to increase the selectivity of the fishing gear, to invest in finding new markets for species that traditionally had no value, but cannot be discarded anymore because of the discard ban.” CEPESCA, the Spanish fishing sector platform, emphasised that “it is essential to keep scrapping aid and funds for temporary cessation of activities” respectively to adjust fishing capacity to the resources available, and to address interruption of fisheries agreements.
The EP vote to double investment in data collection, control and regulation enforcement was welcomed by both industry and environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). However, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) deplored that aid for scrapping was still an option.
It was also highlighted that the challenge for people on both sides of the debate is that “no one, not even the European Commission, is certain how much money is flowing to the industry” as the EU is not the only source of subsidies for the European industry. NGOs such as Oceana emphasise that fuel subsidies in the form of direct payments and diesel-tax exemptions amount to hundreds of millions of euros of additional aid each year: “None of that money is on the table for discussion, government-financed overcapacity will not soon go away.”
Editorial comment
It is interesting that the most pertinent issue during the EMFF debate – the possibility to fund the building of new vessels – was not a demand from the European industry. This explains that both the industry (which did not ask for such subsidies) and NGOs (which were against) are cautiously welcoming the EP vote. However, it is important for ACP countries that the decommissioning of subsidies is maintained, albeit for a short period of time. It is probable that some vessels that were prevented from fishing under FPAs – such as the octopus fleet in Mauritania – will use these scrapping funds. Investments in ‘sustainable fishing’ will be supported: less fuel-consuming engines, more selective fishing gear, but also more subsidies for data collection, monitoring and control. These are aspects that could be beneficial for ACP countries that have EU vessels fishing in their exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In particular, increased funding for data collection could facilitate requests by ACP countries for more detailed data about EU vessels catches and by-catches made in their EEZ.
