Committee on Fisheries Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
PECH European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
EU landings of these species are under quota management and have decreased by 43% between 2020 and 2023. Additionally, inflation and raw material supply constraints due to the Ukraine war and Brexit have led to reduced EU seafood consumption and have pushed consumers to rely more on cheaper non-EU imports. Next, please. So I'll now focus on competitiveness in catch fisheries. So competitiveness is strongly impacted by production costs, which for fishing are mainly wages, around a third of total revenue, fuel, around 20%, and other variable costs, around 20%.
Wages in some of the main non-EU countries, particularly Chile, Turkey, and Morocco, which are supplying seafood to the EU market, are significantly lower than those of most EU producers. But other key suppliers, looking at places like Iceland, Norway, and the UK, have higher average wages. So, there's a mixed side to this. Now, look at energy prices. Several key non-EU supplier countries, including most of the northern European suppliers, have lower energy prices, creating a comparative benefit for non-EU processing companies, even if this is just for freezing and storing products for export.
Despite continued fuel subsidies for fishing fleets by EU member states, fuel prices are still higher than those of non-EU suppliers of fishing products, for instance, Morocco. But other suppliers, such as Norway, Iceland, and the UK, have higher average prices. Competitiveness is not only impacted by the unit cost of production inputs, but also by the productivity and efficiency of production. And I think this is something we'll see more of later in this presentation. Despite the high unit costs of fuel and wages, Iceland and Norway can supply the EU with seafood, as their fisheries are productive with a high catch per unit effort and are harvested by modern, efficient fishing fleets.
Moving to competitors in agriculture. European agriculture production is around 1,000,000 tons, and it's dominated by mussels, which are just over one third, trout about 15%, seabream 10%, oysters 9%, and seabass 8%. The competitors of EU agriculture, whose growth has remained largely stagnant for the last decade, have been challenged by a combination of rising costs, environmental challenges, and imports from third countries, such as Turkey, which imports large volumes of sea bass, sea bream, and trout, and Chile, which has traditionally been salmon, but also increasingly mussels. And that's the subject of one of our case studies. So, as part of our study, we had two case studies.
The first looked at the import of CBAS and CBREEM from Turkey primarily into Greece. So Turkey has extensive vertical integration with an increasing focus on large-scale enterprises that benefit from economies of scale, particularly compared to Greece. Although Greece has also grown in integration over the last few years. Turkey also has a lower cost base than Greece, both for wages and energy costs. Feed costs are also slightly higher in Greece.
Output prices are similar between the two countries, but Greece can leverage its processing capacity and access to nearby member state markets to penetrate niche and premium markets. Sea bass and seabream production in Turkey used to benefit from fiscal productive incentives, but this has no longer been the case since at least 2020. In contrast to some EU states, it does, however, enjoy the wholehearted policy support from the Turkish government. It very much seems a major exporter. Turning to the Chilean mussel, the importance of the EU.
We used Galicia in Spain as our case study. The cost of mussel production in Galicia is around 0.74 euros per kilogram. Although some sources suggest this might be as high as 1.18 kilograms per kilo, a lot of the wages are difficult to calculate. Whereas in Chile, it could be as low as €0.69 per kilogram. Although not mentioned in the study, the cost of transporting frozen mussels to the EU market from Chile is around €0.08 to €0.20 per kilogram.
As well as the lower wage and energy costs in Chile, the main advantage of Chile's farming industry is its large scale and willingness to adapt to modern farming techniques. Despite these challenges, Galithian mussels enjoy a pre-priced premium and fetch higher prices in live, fresh form, unlike the mainly frozen mass-market Chilean mussel products. One of the areas we were asked to look at was how, given that agriculture, compared to capture issues, has the main potential to expand in productivity, is to look at the role of innovation. So, that is probably the best avenue to grow fisheries and aquaculture supply. And innovation is also a means to build resilience to both climate change and competition from third countries.
And innovation is at the forefront of EU policy for agricultural development, as well as supported financially through Horizon and MFAP funding. But despite this, the uptake of new and innovative agricultural practices is slow, and upscaling is limited as well. We looked at two particular examples of innovation and of agriculture development opportunities. The first was moving bivalve agriculture offshore. Traditional onshore or inshore active extensive bivalve aquacultures have limited options for growth, mostly due to spatial constraints.
But moving offshore has its challenges, including obtaining leases and permissions. There are also difficult oceanographic conditions. They tend to be a long distance from shore, and there are additional costs in infrastructure, operations, and site monitoring. So innovation has a real role to play in terms of maybe reducing predation, which is an increasing issue, introducing adaptive systems responding to incoming storms and marine heat waves, and remote systems to reduce the need for shore-based support and fuel-intensive transport systems. The second case study we looked at for upscaling and diversifying EU production is through recirculating agriculture systems, or RAS systems.
These are where, instead of having open water pens, you recirculate the water through the system up to a 100% level. So you're very aware that allows you to reduce freshwater use. You could control environmental impacts, and you could also potentially diversify into new species from outside the EU. So you could potentially grow things like warm water prawns in warmer systems. The main barriers are technical challenges in upscaling, high energy requirements that could be very energy-hungry, biosecurity issues, and technical know-how.
But many of these things can be, and are being, overcome through innovation. So, things like energy-efficient pumping and filtration systems, as well as on-farm power generation and battery storage. But one of the key things is the importance of dissemination of these successful solutions amongst EU RAS practitioners, because there are lots of good innovations being made, but you need to disseminate those. Moving to the next subject, which is stimulating investment in agriculture. So, the EU agriculture sector has strong potential, but as we discussed earlier, growth has remained pretty much stagnant for the last 10 years.
And there is a requirement for more coordinated and targeted investment to reach scale. Current funding primarily comes from public sources, mainly through the MFAP, InvestoU, and BluInvest. And these have supported over 2,000 operations worth over €210,000,000 since 2010. However, investment remains fragmented and often short-term, and it limits the sector's ability to innovate and attract private capital. So from our findings, we consider public funding should be better aligned across EU national and regional programs, across Horizon Europe, MFAP, and the National Blue Economy Plans.
There needs to be a much more coordinated, mission-oriented approach, framing agriculture within the Green Deal and Blue Economy to channel capital towards sustainability and competitiveness. In terms of looking at caps private capital, we focus just now more on public capital. It's crucial to the scaling up of innovations, particularly to something like RAS systems we mentioned just now, alternative feeds, offshore farming like mussels we discussed, and things like regenerative agriculture such as seaweeds. So, to unblock private finance, the EU could support blended and derisking mechanisms, blending private and public capital, and look at derisking because agriculture is generally regarded as high risk in many areas, particularly innovations. For solid green and blue bonds, equity, and revenue-based financing for sustainable projects.
There's also a need for tax incentives for low-carbon technologies and energy-efficient systems, as well as improved market access and predictability. But also some structural elements, such as faster permitting, more stable offtake agreements, and harmonized sustainability. DG Murray is currently launching a new study on private funding of agriculture through the agricultural assistance mechanism. By aligning public and private capital around innovation, resilience, and sustainability, the EU can ensure agriculture is a key pillar of the blue economy, enhancing food security, creating green jobs, and ensuring long-term economic viability across European coastal regions. Look at the penultimate section: policy and regulatory sets and mechanisms.
The EU has identified that the key risk to remaining competitive requires it to close the irrigation gap, to decarbonize the economy, and to reduce dependencies. There are several FAPs, that is, fisheries, aquaculture, and products, specific policies and regulations that apply to environmental and social standards of EU production. But the competitiveness of EU production is negatively impacted by the absence of reciprocal requirements for imports or the inability to differentiate standards in the market, and that is a common complaint from the industry. This year, 2026, has seen the introduction of sustainability criteria associated with the autonomous tariff quotas (ATQs) to ensure minimum environmental and social standards, covering areas such as IU, fisheries, and some labor issues. But to date, non-EU countries are not required to meet the same high standards of EU seafood production.
There is no requirement to inform EU consumers of the standards associated with the seafood they consume. Finally, coming to the policy recommendations, we have eight different recommendations. The first is to strengthen direct support to address constraints and introduce innovative funding mechanisms to fishery sector operators, both in capture fisheries and in agriculture, particularly in the green and digital transition. The second is to develop a fishery-specific technology policy to introduce efficiency gains for artificial intelligence, which is coming at us very fast, digital tools, and automation in the fishery sector and its governance. The third is to increase the emphasis on the need to grow and diversify EU agriculture.
This has been very much part of the strategic guidelines produced in 2021, but supporting innovation will be key to this. Fourthly, the long-term realignment of EU agriculture is considered to adapt to and benefit from the expected consequences of climate change. Climate change is not necessarily all bad, so there's a need to adapt to the changing conditions and to maintain and roll with climate change. The fifth area is to support the development of coexistence between agriculture, local communities, and other marine economic activities. So, the emphasis on the blue economy is essential, with agriculture being a part of the blue economy.
The sixth element is developing a coordinated, focused approach to encourage investment in agriculture, particularly framing agriculture within the Green Deal and the Blue Economy. Seventh is to ensure that seafood imports are consistent with the EU's commitment to sustainable development in trade agreements. And finally, the last point is to expand marketing standards and consumer labeling to include sustainability criteria, to try and level the playing field. Thank you. That's the end of the presentation.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mister Huntington, for this magnificent explanation of your work. We will now give the floor to the members who would like to take part in this debate. We'll start with Mr. Roussin. You have the floor, sir.
And, Doug.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you. Thank you, madam. Thank you for that report and for the very clear explanations. That was very valuable and very useful. It gives us a very clear idea of the competitive situation of the fishery sector compared to fisheries outside the European Union if you actually look at the different costs.
And I see that labor costs, of course, are important: 33%. At the same time, fuel consumption is an important part of the costs. If I look at this, I seem to feel that we need to keep talking about cleaner engines and also the fishing gear, which could lead to reducing fuel consumption. So this is a call to ourselves and the commission to have a really in-depth debate on fishery fishing gear, which is more selective and could lead to less fuel consumption. This is my cry from the heart, so to speak.
So, let me just give you a couple of comments. Your recommendation is to develop technological policies specific to fisheries through the use of AI and digitalization. If you look at the European fishery sector and the entire maritime sector, it's really a rather small sector. So the question is, do you believe that it is sufficiently broad in scale? Does it have the capacity to actually come to this type of specific technological policy?
And would it be a good idea to try to cooperate with other maritime sectors? Do you believe that the fishery sector is perhaps too fragmented? What is your view? Would it be a good idea to work with other maritime sectors across borders so that digitalization, automation, and the use of AI can be sped up? And on aquaculture, that is an important part of your report, and it is considered a sector that can help us find a solution to self-sufficiency or self-supply.
Do you think aquaculture can be combined with offshore wind turbines within the areas where there are concessions in the North Sea? Have you seen this? Have you looked into this to see whether you can combine wind energy and aquaculture? And what type of obstacles may we find on our way? If the commission is present today, I have a question for it.
Are you prepared to create tools so that there can be a combination of the use of wind energy at sea and the use of agriculture? Thank you. Mr. Christensen.
Ms. Levin ?
Speaker 5
Thank you very much for the presentation. I think I'm over here. This way. Yeah. Yeah.
I think there are some important conclusions and policy recommendations. However, I lack a little bit of analysis on the reason that we have less and less catches for European consumers, because it's not about cost-effectiveness; it's about the amount of fish that we have in the ocean and the resources that we have in order to increase aquaculture. So, I would be curious to know your analysis on how we can actually increase the production of aquatic food in the European Union if we're talking about wild resources. And if you could also have an opinion on what we could do in order to increase the actual fish stocks, which are at quite low levels in many of our seas now, this would actually contribute to self-sufficiency and food security in the European Union. So, it would have been useful to see a scenario where we could observe how this could develop.
Also, when you talk about the costs, I think it's really valid to underline that Icelandic and Norwegian boats have higher costs when it comes to wages and fuel. And still, you underline that they are very competitive, and they catch many more fish. And that is due to their highly productive fisheries, which they have maintained through effective fisheries management. And so, I think recommendations on highly efficient fisheries management are really what we need in order to know how we can increase the catches and increase our self-sufficiency when it comes to fish. Then I was also wondering, I think you excluded pelagic fish for fish meal and fish oil, those catches when you made your account.
So maybe you can clarify that when you try to explain how much we are importing. Because also, I think that's something that needs to be addressed: a lot of the catches, for instance, in the Baltic Sea are not going to human consumption; they're going to fish meal. And we're exporting that to Norway, and then we're reimporting those herrings and spreads in the form of farmed salmon from Norway, which also leads me to the fact that we also have the European consumers' taste in here. So basically, we're importing a lot of species and exporting others because there is also a request for tuna, salmon, and other species that we actually don't have in European waters. Maybe you could say a little bit about that as well.
On aquaculture, I very much appreciate that you are talking about sustainable aquaculture. How do you see that we can really promote low-trophic species and sustainable aquaculture in order to increase production? Yes. So, I mean, this is also about the figures. My last point, if I may, is to share. So, if we look at it, could you give us a year or a date when Europe was actually self-sufficient in fish products?
Is this something that is possible for us even? How would we go about doing that? The EU has, ever since before the CFP, been dependent on imports. But I do agree that we need to have sustainable criteria for the imports. And yes, I'll stop there.
Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much, Chair. Chair, I'm not a member of this committee, but I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak at it. And this morning, I asked a fisherman in my constituency to review the work on this important item, assessing the impact of seafood imports on EU self-sufficiency. And he replied to me by saying, "You make an awful lot of noise in the European Parliament about the qualities and the standards in other countries when it comes to beef and chicken, but you very rarely refer to the imports in fish and to the standards which apply." And he asked me to reiterate that point today: his general concern about the level playing field, as you refer to it, the standards of imports and the competition with non-EU fleets.
The fishing community in Ireland at the moment is under siege, particularly in the ports of Killebags, where this fisherman rang me this morning. And he asked me to emphasize the point that, at the end of the day, what they want is a level playing field. They want to see the data backing up the conditions under which the imports are taking place, and that includes the labor involved, the labor conditions, what people are paid in other third countries, and other sources. And, at the end of the day, what they are asking for is very straightforward. They're asking for a level playing field in this and other areas.
Thank you.
Señor.
Speaker 9
For the presentation of your report and the recommendations relating to the competitiveness of EU seafood production, you identify important gaps that need to be addressed. But my question is about some concepts that I didn't see in the report, and there are several references to food security, but food sovereignty isn't mentioned. And it's not nitpicking to look at one over the other. The focus of food security and food sovereignty is different. Food security means that we can eat what we want, when we want; so, the focus is inevitably on imports and global markets.
Speaker 16
Food sovereignty has a much more local focus on sustainable, localized food systems and its people, by the people, for the people, as the saying goes. And, when it comes to Ireland, we have a large fishing industry, but we're not actually self-sufficient in domestic terms. And actually, Ireland was named by The Economist magazine a couple of years ago as the most food-secure country in the world. Even though we eat lots of potatoes, we do not produce enough; we use sugar, but we produce none. I could go through a variety of things.
Speaker 9
And in the morning, if we couldn't import food into Ireland, it really wouldn't be worth a damn to us to be food secure if we weren't food sovereign. And we had a famine in Ireland in the 1840s. Even though we were exporting food out of the country, I think we should be wary of focusing on food security and not looking at food sovereignty, because we starved as a result of that in Ireland. The other concept I didn't see in the report is fisheries co-management, and I think it's an important tool, like food sovereignty, to improve self-sufficiency through localized food systems. So, a question: do you think that food sovereignty and fisheries co-management should have a place in the drive to increase the competitiveness of the EU seed food production?
Speaker 12
And if so, how could they be integrated into your policy recommendations? And thanks for the work you have done.
Thank you.
Speaker 18
You. If we go through the European Union's fisheries policies, we can see that the policies have moved towards a reduction of fishing effort. There were reductions in licenses and the conservation of the ecosystem. So, basically, less for the conservation of species and less production for the market. But, at the same time, demand has increased.
Speaker 14
And for health reasons, the organoleptic characteristics of fish have increased imports. Over the years, there has been a progressive increase in imports. So imports from Chile, Morocco, and Iceland. The only way of improving is to create a European map of fish production in the EU, including aquaculture and marine culture. So we need to look into this and explore new techniques for the incentives for the species to reproduce. If not, we will become complete importers.
Speaker 11
So, I think this is what we should be looking at for the future. Thank you. Mister Rodriguez. Thank you.
Speaker 13
You, chair. Mister Huntington, you set out a realistic but also quite pessimistic snapshot, showing that there's a lack of investment and that innovation can have a more important role. External competition, as we all recognize, has advantages compared to European producers. These data are not really new, but they show how important agriculture is in relation to the production and consumption of fish products here in the EU. We have 80% of EU products, or 80% of our fish, coming from outside the EU. So we need to look at how we can improve this and how we can move forward.
And with the eight policy recommendations that you set out, you talk about innovation. You talk about import, and these can all help us. Now, we also need to look at these recommendations and say who these recommendations are directed at, because there are different authorities involved, and they need to address these issues so that we can take this major leap forward in relation to food sovereignty. And also, the question is: what species as well? So, we could address all of these policy recommendations at all the different levels.
So, what measures should be taken at the European level, and which measures should be taken more at the member state level? Thank you.
Speaker 1
I'd now like to thank you. I'd like to give the floor to Marie Lorena Cruz. You have the floor.
Speaker 15
Thanks, Chair. So, well, we welcome this study. I think it looks at something that the European Commission has been looking into for quite some time. Of course, we have heard the concerns that have been expressed by different stakeholders, member states, members of parliament, and industry themselves on the level playing field, on the competitiveness or the competition between imports and EU production in the EU market. We are, of course, addressing this in different ways.
I am personally more involved in aquaculture than in fisheries, but, of course, I am also familiar with what is happening on the fisheries side. We are aware that there is a decrease in self-sufficiency in the market. There was a question about whether we would ever be able to be self-sufficient in aquatic food; probably not. But what we are seeing is a decrease in self-sufficiency, which is worrying. And I think it's worrying not only because of the question of food security and food sovereignty that was mentioned, but also because we are missing opportunities for creating jobs in the EU.
So that's why the commission is interested in this. And in particular, on aquaculture, we see, and this has been for a long time, a great potential for increased aquaculture production in the EU to somehow reverse the trend towards less self-sufficiency. And as you know, we have a commission strategy, but we also have member states' national plans for pushing the sector to grow. And, well, we also have very relevant initiatives coming, as you know, where we have the evaluation of the CLP ongoing. Hopefully, we'll get results on this in May.
That is also looking into all the issues that you have referred to. But also, importantly, we have the Vision 2040 that is under preparation for both sectors, fisheries and aquaculture. And again, we were looking at issues that have been mentioned here, like transition, digitalization, and how to increase, in fact, food sovereignty and food security. I think there was a question directly addressed to the commission that I would like to reply to now. It was related to the combination of offshore wind energy and aquaculture.
There are indeed several pilots, including in the Baltic and North Sea, ongoing that show this is possible. They're looking mostly at low-trophic aquaculture. We recently published a study requested by Digimar in the commission on scaling up seaweed and shellfish aquaculture, precisely in the planned areas for offshore wind farms in the Baltic and North Sea, and the potential is quite significant. So, definitely, there is potential there. And in terms of whether we are ready to put the tools in place for this combination of sectors, I think we are ready.
We have to see what the different avenues are for this. We have the preparation of the Ocean Act, as you know, which is looking at the use of space. And I think multiuse would probably be one thing that will figure in that future act. But we also, for example, under the Ocean Pact, have foreseen an EU sustainable aquaculture initiative, which refers specifically to multi-use. So, definitely, we are working in this direction.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And now, to close the debate and reply to the questions and the many queries that have been made. So, can we give the floor to Tim Huntington for 10 minutes? You have the floor.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. And I now need to decipher my reading and my writing. So, I'll start with Mr. Rustin. Ask about efficiency and productivity; there is a need to have cleaner engines and better fishing gear. And I agree entirely that those elements are very important.
Speaker 2
And there's a lot of work being done in terms of fuel efficiency because, particularly in the trawl fisheries themselves, fuel costs are a major part of profitability. So everyone is trying to reduce the fuel costs through better gear or whatever. So, I totally agree with that. You also mentioned cooperation with the other parts of the maritime sector. Absolutely.
Speaker 3
I mean, the idea of the blue economy has been, in the last five to ten years, really centered around coexistence between the different parts of the maritime economy. And I think there are, you know, things like seafood hubs. There's real potential for combining expertise, whether it's research, processing, productivity, or all sorts of these things that can be done together. In terms of agriculture, I think Luria just agreed to describe it in terms of combining agriculture with offshore wind. Absolutely.
There's a lot of work being done on that. There are challenges, of course, because wind farm operators have different objectives than agriculture operators. So the more understanding there is between the two, the more likely such an operation is to succeed. This is 11. So I probably imprinted your name incorrectly.
So, in terms of increasing self-sufficiency, fish stock management, of course, is key. And, you know, this is something which has been part of the CFP for many years: trying to improve the sustainability of stocks, and it underlies everything. I think it is important, but equally, there is always going to be a balance between what we can produce here, particularly finite fisheries resources, because they are finite. And, you know, a growing population in the EU, growing demand, there will always be a demand for raw materials from outside of the EU. I mean, that's demonstrated by the fact you have the ATQs, which allow tariff-free import of raw materials for processing in the EU, like tuna.
But, in terms of self-sufficiency, I think maybe you asked me if there would ever be self-sufficiency? I'm not sure it's you. Like I said, I certainly don't think that in my lifetime you will ever be self-sufficient in fisheries. But I think, you know, it's just this could be a very large population and a finite production, really. So, in terms of agriculture promotion, low trophic species are 100%, not just things like seaweed, which is a big one, but that's never really going to be for human consumption.
But something like mussels, bivalves, very healthy, things that have a great potential for increase. But we need to understand one of the recommendations we made; one of the six or eight recommendations was remapping. And as well, I think the last question about mapping productivity in the EU is important. As climate change effects become more obvious, things like agriculture, the bivalve agriculture in the Mediterranean, will start shifting to the northern parts of the EU. And we need to sort of understand that and replace that in, you know, in the remapping of our culture according to the climate. Miss Maloli, although I'll probably mispronounce your name again.
Your stakeholder you mentioned from Achillebags, I think it was yes. Level playing field is always going to be a key thing. I think things are leveling up a bit. There's, you know, for instance, the new catch IT system to try and understand the origin of catch. I think that will make a difference.
It was introduced this year. And as the system resolves any sort of remnants it might have, it will increase the transparency of imports into the EU, which will help level the playing field to a certain extent. But there still will be issues, let's say, over labor practices outside the EU, which will be a question, and they may be more difficult to identify through traceability systems. But third-party certification may have addressed a role in that. Mister Flanagan, for sovereignty and co-management, I agree with you.
I'd appreciate understanding the difference between security and sovereignty. I think co-management, you mentioned in particular, it's yes. Good issues management depends on co-management, and it's key. And in terms of, I think, things like digitalization can help co-management. It can give people voices who maybe didn't have voices, particularly from the coastal communities who primarily don't sit on the big committees at the national level, through digitalization and various means that it might be possible to raise their voices so that they have a bigger say in how people manage their resources at the local level.
And the settlement here, sorry, but talked about the EU mapping of production, particularly agriculture. I totally agree. I think the maritime spatial planning has helped give a mechanism for mapping. But as I mentioned earlier, with climate change, there is a need for dynamic mapping. It's not something which, you know, you can't say, right?
This is a map. Here, you could produce these species or this type of agriculture. That will change almost on an annual basis. There will be changes, and it needs to be a dynamic system. Mister Rodrigue, you mentioned the importance of agriculture and the need to identify who the recommendations are for.
We've given 8 recommendations, and the question is who they are for. And I accept that's a point which needs to be taken up, maybe in the dissemination and use of this document. Those who are responsible for implementing their zealots could understand that and try to integrate that into work planning. I think those are most of the questions that were asked.
Speaker 19
Thank you. Mister Missus Livin, I think you want to make an additional comment. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 5
Thank you. No. I just like to return to my question about fishing for fish meal and fish oil because we've been talking about self-sufficiency and food security. I'd be curious to know if you know how much of the total EU catches actually go to animal feed, if you have that figure. But I think it's something that, if we are really concerned about our self-sufficiency and food security, we should be sure that whatever we fish goes to human consumption because there's a lot of energy loss with transitioning to food and then eating pigs and Norwegian salmon.
Thank you.
You.
Speaker 3
Appreciate that the point about fish meal or non-fish going through either non-human consumption or going through different steps, let's say, through aqua feeds. I don't know the figures offhand, so I'm sorry I can't rely on that. But, yeah, it's to understand this in the overall flow of the materials. And I think that it is in the high-level analysis we did. We did look at those designated for aqua feeds and ruminant feeds and things like that, and the component.
There are, you know, pros and cons to this. I mean, the agriculture industry is trying to reduce its level of marine proteins very successfully, but that's caused its own problems, of course, in terms of use of soy, deforestation, and other things as well. And the other aspect may be slightly contrary. There are differences in energy flows as you look at these things, but agriculture tends to be quite efficient in terms of the amount of fish used and consumed from feed fisheries to agriculture. It tends to be almost as efficient as natural systems.
There are several papers which show there's actually not a huge loss of efficiency, but it does vary in different animal feeds. So I accept the point.
Speaker 15
To complement the reply on this point, as you might be aware, in the strategy for aquaculture of the EU, there's also the issue of sustainable feed and sustainable feed ingredients. Of course, the question of sustainability has different aspects. One, of course, is not to endanger feedstocks. So I must concur with what Mr. Huntington said. The content in terms of fish meal, fish oil, and fish feed is decreasing substantially.
In addition, there are more byproducts of fish being used in fish feed. And, of course, we are looking into alternatives as well. But of course, looking into alternatives, you also have to look into alternatives that are fit for the health of the fish and also for bringing the benefits that fish brings to the health of the consumers. So it's not such an easy thing. But yes, we think we are considering what the right mix of ingredients is that could be sustainable and efficient at the same time.
I just wanted to signal that the commission has requested a study on FEED, on the situation, supply, demand, and different ingredients that we're hoping to publish soon, probably in March.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. So this brings this item to a close. Thank you so much, Mr. Huntington and his team, and Mrs. De La Cruz, for your work. Thank you for your contributions, and I'm sure we'll continue to talk about this in this committee. So, this brings us to the next item: implementation of the fisheries control regulation.
Provisions recently entered into force, and this was on 01/10/2026. Some rules and regulations led to complaints about catch control or the catches for those fishing at sea. So the commission is going to give us some information on this particular fisheries control regulation that came into force. So, eight minutes for Mr. Jerome Broad. Digimar, you have the floor.
Speaker 21
Thank you very much for the floor. Just a quick recap before we dive into the question of what just entered into force on 01/10/2026. So, like you said, the revision was adopted in 2023. The revised regulation entered into force in January 2024. And the revision provided for a staged entry into force of a number of provisions over five years, more or less.
The main points of entry into force were May 2024 for the derogation to the margin of tolerance, then January 2026, so last month, for a large number of provisions. And then we're moving to January 2027 for the weighing provisions, meaning the derogations to the obligation to weigh everything at lending. Then, a year ahead from '27, we are in January 28, when important provisions will enter into force, including CCTVs on both larger vessels for the control of the lending obligation. We will also have, in January 2028, the entry into force of certain provisions applicable to smaller vessels below 12 meters. We will have obligations regarding the control and monitoring of engine power, and then a few others, but these are the most important.
And then, one year later, the end of the implementation with the traceability provision for fresh and frozen products. So now the question was about the provisions that entered into force this year on January 10. So here, we basically have a long list of provisions. This is really the big bang of the entry into force of the revised control regulation in January 2026. We are talking about access to water.
We're talking about the marking of gears. We're talking about geolocalization of vessels through VMS. I'm not going to go through the list. It's a bit too long. But maybe a word about how we got there, how we got to 01/10/2026 after the entry into force of the regulation.
Well, we have prepared with the commission. We have prepared and adopted a set of two very important secondary pieces of legislation: an implementing act and a delegated act. The delegated act was adopted on August 25, and the implementing act on October 25, where we have basically operationalized all these provisions that enter into force in January 2026. To get there, it was a long process of consultations and exchanges with member states' experts through expert group meetings, bilateral meetings, working group meetings, etc. A long ping pong with the member states with a view to achieving an optimal result in terms of providing to the operators and the member states authorities fit-for-purpose rules that are implementable, yet simple enough in the spirit of simplification of this commission, but also respecting the ambition set by the co-legislators in the revision of the control regulation. I think I can actually be shorter than the time you have given me and leave it there, maybe saving more time for answers to questions.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much. I'd now like to open the floor with the EPP. Mr. Mato, please. Oh, well, thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Commission for the presentation on January 19. There is a strike declared by the fishery sector because of the new control measures, and this should not be ignored when an entire sector down tools because the control regulation seems completely unfeasible.
Speaker 22
We have the obligation. We have the responsibility to listen to them. If we impose obligations on operators that they cannot realistically comply with, then we are weakening the sector. Moreover, we are jeopardizing our credibility as politicians. No.
The control regulation, like all EU regulations, needs to respect the ideas of proportionality, feasibility, and other points. So, digitalization can reduce the administrative burden. However, this simplification cannot be achieved entirely through digitalization. The revised control regulation is not simplifying the procedures. It has introduced heavier obligations, and obligations that aren't really credible, above all for artisanal fisheries.
We're asking for extremely precise information about every single fish that is caught, with very high levels of penalties, especially for small errors. No. We're asking if a split by species from the first kilogram is possible. Now, this doesn't reflect the operational reality of vessels. And I say this once again, above all, for the small-scale fisheries.
Now, this digital traceability and catch certification is also very difficult. So this transition to digital systems should contribute to fighting fraud. However, what we're seeing here is that the current application of Catch is premature, and there is also a whole range of technical problems, which is creating an increased burden on operators. A digital system that is not fully operational and not tailored to users does not simplify things for operators. It just increases uncertainty and the risk of non-compliance.
And this is a situation which is further exacerbated by implementing acts. We often see that the implementation of how things are being deemed and the tolerances are leading to legal uncertainty and practical complications. These measures are not strengthening the control. They're making compliance more difficult. This, furthermore, means that we're just reintroducing provisions which were explicitly rejected during the negotiations between the co-legislators on the control regulation.
This is something absolutely unacceptable. We have constantly said that the fisheries regulation and implementing acts need to be drawn up progressively. It also needs to be done in a clear, close, structured dialogue with the fishers. It's only the fishers who are out there and really understand how things work. We cannot ignore this experience because otherwise, we'll just end up with rules that seem coherent, written on a piece of paper, but absolutely unimplementable.
We need to avoid administrative burden; it is not justifiable. Proportionality is absolutely vital for any effective control system. We can under no circumstances accept this framework, which threatens the economic viability of our fleets rather than actually supporting compliance with the rules. If it is necessary, then we should look at a possible specific review of certain provisions of the regulation. That can be done quite easily via an initiative which has been implemented in the omnibus in the agriculture sector, for example.
I'll conclude with this. We've asked the commission for a proposal to simplify complex rules. These rules, which are also not practical, we'd like to see simplified for the fishery sector. It's been done in different sectors. Fisheries cannot and should not be the forgotten sector when it comes to regulatory reform in the European Union.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Speaker 24
Thank you very much, Mister Gonzalez Casares, please. Firstly, we need to say that fishers in Spain and fishers in Galicia, where I'm from, have come out onto the streets because of the control regulation. It means that the work is impossible. It's impossible for them to work, above all, for coastal fisheries and small-scale fisheries. Now the control regulation is an absolutely key linchpin of the fisheries policy.
Speaker 25
It ensures a level playing field. So that's why we understand the issue rather than the commission's proposal. We don't understand how we're seeing a 6% reduction in funds for fisheries control. We need to have sufficient funds to achieve this. The commission is fully aware of the major concerns, the protests, and demonstrations that have been going on in Spain against these measures, and there has been general criticism.
Speaker 26
Now I'll start by saying the first thing: the obligation to declare all catch aboard, which is particularly burdensome for the artisanal coastal fleet. It means that the tolerances can be met very quickly, and it means that people are exposed to penalties very quickly. We need to establish the correct rules so that we can ensure that fisheries activity is not unviable. Secondly, it's clear that prior notification of entry to port can be very difficult when you're very close to the line. You can't always anticipate when you are going to come in.
Speaker 24
And this is something that should be left to national authorities, who should be allowed to tailor the requirements to the reality of the activity of the different fishing grounds and different fishing fleets. Now, for the coastal and artisanal fleets, twenty-four hours or even shorter periods are just completely impractical. It's impossible for them, and it can actually lead to higher safety risks on board. These are questions that the commission should be open to, listen to, and be flexible about when it comes to their application. Moreover, Mr. Matto has already said this: the commission should be aware of the problems that are being created as a result of the sudden implementation of the catch system.
Speaker 25
Now, the catch system is creating problems for the fleets. The catch system is not allowing fishers to meet the procedures for the import or export of fisheries produce within the EU. So, I would call for flexibility, but I would call for something else as well. Many sectors, which are affected by European legislation, are being reviewed, and these are reviews which weren't called for by different sectors or different parts of society. However, fishers, that's one sector.
Speaker 24
They have been calling for this. No. We can see things aren't working perfectly to support the fishery sector, and the fishers feel that they're being ignored. So, let us not ignore the fishery sector. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
You. Mr. Royston, please.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you, madam. I think it's high time to look at the facts. And the control regulation is really leading to serious difficulties. We already saw this coming, and that is why I never supported it in the past. But, anyway, now we have this control regulation, and, therefore, I do agree with what was said by colleague, Mr. Mato.
We need an omnibus regulation for fisheries so that the mistakes that were made can be redressed. We really need simplification. The commission is preparing many of these omnibus regulations and is prepared to look at regulations that have only been adopted recently, such as the CSRD regulation. So, I don't quite see this particular control regulation, which is quite recent. Why don't we take a closer look at this one?
So, my question to the commission today is.
Already done.
Speaker 27
And before that, you need to have the agreement internally. I'm feeling that I have to repeat it myself.
Speaker 28
Less. And they want more. And that's why I think it will be a bit of a fight about how we deal with them. In practice, to negotiate. Another thing shared, I know you put them all together or something.
Speaker 29
Jointly. Okay. Thanks.
A. Cross-reference or something. But you immediately want to make sure that we have something to say about it. The conference. A little bit.
Then you still have it, and the fact that the council is doing it makes it easier for us.
Yeah.
Speaker 30
To say, you know, one more thing: you're trying even the wheel. And if I don't do it, we will see them. They're doing it. I understood for now.
The definitions.
Ask for a score.
Calendar.
Yeah.
Speaker 34
I. I think I will start with a male. Maybe I will first write to Maxine Emil. And Isaac, and see how they react, and if we do it with the opposite. I just, you know, I will start small and see, inhibit a bit for okay.
Bye. Okay.
Thank you. You.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.