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 sittings
Carmen Crespo Díaz
You, as a candidate, have duly completed the declaration on awareness of conflicts of interest, the declaration of private interests, and the declaration relating to the code of appropriate behavior. And you have duly completed the two mandatory training courses on preventing conflict and harassment in the workplace, and on good office management. As such, I can inform you that the candidate has completed all these declarations, complies with the rules applicable to mandatory training for members, and has declared not to be aware of any conflict of interest in relation to the responsibilities of the office. Therefore, I would like to suggest that we continue with the election of the first vice-chair by acclamation. And I therefore declare mister Dunnacimento Cabral elected by acclamation and invite him to take a seat on the podium.
Speaker 5
Congratulations, mister Dunnascimento Cabral. You will be working on behalf of all of Europe. Thank you. Welcome, mister Dina Cimento Cabral, to the podium of the fisheries committee. I am convinced you will do an excellent job here on behalf of all the fisher folk.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
So now let's move on to the electronic vote. Can you prepare your voting cards, please? We're voting on pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2027 budget. So we're going to be starting the vote. So we'll start if you'd agree with proposal number 1.
Show of hands. Vote in favor. Those against. Abstentions. That is carried.
Second proposal, those in favor? Against. Abstentions. That's adopted. Proposal number three, those in favor?
Against. Abstentions. That's adopted. Number four, those in favor? Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. Five number 5. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions are adopted. Number six. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted.
Number 7. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. Number 8.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions? Adopted. Number 9.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions? Adopted. And now we're going to the final vote, which is on the package of proposals adopted, roll call vote.
Voting is open. And it's closed. And it's adopted 16 votes in favor, two against, and three abstentions. Congratulations. Next.
And we'll move straight onto this because we have a full agenda today, an exchange of views on management with representatives from IFAC. Is everyone ready? And I'd like to welcome our guests today. Now, as you know, we're moving on to the question of cormorants. This is item six of our agenda.
And when the Kinderman report was adopted, and in the 2022 resolution, parliament called on the commission to adopt a management plan. And more recently, member states also stressed the need for measures to successfully manage the pan-European cormorant population. And in 2022, our committee organized a public hearing on cormorants with distinguished scientists who explained the impact of this species not only on aquaculture but on biodiversity too. I am particularly pleased, therefore, to welcome today professor Iain Kochs from the University of Hull and doctor Raymond Van Anroy from the European Inland Fisheries and Agriculture Advisory Committee of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, who are the authors of a management plan on commerce. So we would warmly welcome you both.
Professor and doctor. You have the floor for 15 minutes. And then afterwards, I'll pass the floor to the coordinators, and we will have the possibility of having an exchange of views, too, with the members of the committee. So, professor Kauks, you have the floor for fifteen minutes to explain to us the details of the plan you've drawn up, and I understand this presentation. Carmen Diaz.
Thank you very much, madam chair.
Speaker 6
Of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Remo Verandroy. I'm speaking on behalf of the European Inland Fisheries and Agriculture Advisory Commission, IFAC. This presentation has been made in close collaboration with my colleague, Professor Doctor. Ian Kaukes of the University of Hull.
Today, I would like to present to you the framework for a European management plan for the Great Cormorant. This framework was developed through a broad European stakeholder process involving governments, scientists, environmental NGOs, fisheries organizations, and agriculture producers. The aim is to support a balanced and science-based approach to managing the increasing interactions between gormorants, fish populations, fisheries, and agriculture across Europe. The preparation of the framework was supported by DG Mare under the MFAV work program 2024, 2025 and received technical assistance also from the Angling Trust and the Danish Technical University, in particular, Doctor. Niels Jepsen.
In this presentation, I will briefly address the four points that you see on the screen: first, why we need a European management plan; second, the scale of impact caused by corn man predation; third, the framework that has been developed for a European management plan; and finally, we'll present a short proposal for implementation of the framework through coordinated European action. Next, please. Before discussing the issue itself, allow me to briefly introduce IFAC. IFAC is a regional fishery body established under the FAO already in 1957, so reaching almost 70 years. And it focuses on inland fisheries and agriculture across the European continent.
It has a similar status as, for instance, the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, WCFAC, or the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic Sea CAF. But instead of marine waters, it focuses on inland waters. This is an advisory body. IFAC currently includes 38 member states because recently, we also got Ukraine signing up to be a member and, of course, the European Commission. Its mission is to promote the sustainable development, conservation, and responsible management of inland fisheries and agriculture in Europe.
The framework presented today has been developed by IFAC together with hundreds of European stakeholders. Next, please. The need for a European management plan for cormorants arises from a combination of ecological success and increasing conflicts. Cormorant populations in Europe have increased significantly over the last decades. There has been no Europe-wide census since 2013, but the current estimates indicate a population of around 2,000,000 birds.
At the same time, the species has expanded its distribution across inland and coastal waters, and further south and west in Europe. As a result, conflicts between cormorants and fisheries, aquaculture, and aquatic biodiversity have increased in many countries. Next, please. The great cormorant is a highly mobile species. Cormorants can move hundreds of kilometers between breeding and wintering areas, often crossing several national borders.
Each bird consumes between 40 and 100 grams of fish per day. And across Europe, this corresponds to an estimated annual consumption of fish of more than 300,000 tons. In addition to direct predation, cormorants also injure fish and disturb fish populations, which further increase fish losses. Impacts have been documented on species such as trout, eel, pike, grayling, perch, and several coastal fish species. The highest impacts generally occur in rivers and lakes with relatively small fish biomass.
The map shown here illustrates the recoveries of ringed cormorants across Europe. It clearly demonstrates the transboundary nature of the species, and we see birds moving between northern breeding areas and wintering areas across Central and Eastern and Southern Europe. This means that cormorants that are predating in the wintertime, for instance in Italy, are breeding in the springtime in the Baltic States. Because of this high mobility, local control measures are often not effective or simply move the problem from one place to another. This is one of the reasons why a coordinated European approach is needed.
Next, please. The socioeconomic impacts of excessive predation by cormorants are substantial. Recent studies estimate the annual losses exceeding EUR 350,000,000 across Europe. Of this, more than €250,000,000 affects aquaculture, and more than €100,000,000 affects recreational fisheries angling. The large scale fish predation by cormorants causes pond farm closures, reduced fish stocking in rivers and lakes, as the investments in fish restocking are nullified by the cormorant predation.
They also cause declining rural employment, reduced incomes of farmers and fishers, and reduced opportunities for recreational fishing. The consequences are, therefore, not just ecological, but also economic and social. Next, please. Another important dimension is food security. The diet of cormorants consists of fish from fish fry and shrimp, so small fish, up to fish of 50 centimeters in length.
The European cormorant population of roughly 2,000,000 birds consumes more than 300,000,000 kilograms of fish per year. This is equivalent to the annual fish consumption of approximately 13,000,000 European citizens. In fact, annual fish consumption by cormorants represents more than 2.7x the total inland capture fisheries production in Europe. Similarly, if you compare it to agriculture, the fish consumption by cormorants equals the total annual production in freshwater aquaculture in Europe. These numbers illustrate the large-scale of interaction between cormorants and aquatic food systems.
Next, please. Cormorants are protected under the EU birds directive and are not listed under the huntable bird species. The great cormorant currently has a favorable conservation status and is listed as least concern globally by the IUCN. The birds directive does allow Article 9 derogations, enabling EU member states to take action to prevent serious damage to fisheries and agriculture. However, these measures are applied inconsistently across the member states, and many local actions have been tried.
But for the migratory species, they often have limited effects. At the same time, many inland fish populations remain in a poor conservation status despite very large investments in habitat restoration, fish restocking, and fisheries management. And we will not be able to reach good status of our water bodies as is aimed for in the Water Framework Directive unless we act on this situation with the cormorants. Our stock rehabilitation efforts for strictly protected inland fish species under the Habitats Directive are also impacted by the cormorants. Next, please.
The European Parliament has already recognized this challenge on several occasions. Already in 2008, the parliament adopted a resolution calling for a European cormorant management plan. And the issue was raised again in 2018 and 2022, in resolutions addressing the future of European aquaculture. These resolutions echoed the need for a coordinated European approach to the management of corporate impacts. And the framework presented today aims to respond to the calls from you in the European Parliament.
Next, please. So there are several reasons why a European-level approach is required. First of all, cormorants frequently move across national borders, including into non-EU member states, making it a European-wide issue. Second, local and national management measures often shift cormorants' impacts to neighboring regions or countries. Third, while there are management tools, for instance, from the Intercafe project toolbox, and these have been widely tested, their success is limited when applied only locally.
And finally, the use of Article 9 derogations is not consistently supported or applied across the EU member states. For these reasons, coordination at the European level is necessary. Next, please. The overall goal of the proposed management plan is not to undermine conservation success. Rather, it is to achieve a fair balance between the conservation of great cormorants across Europe and the sustainable use and protection of fish populations, fisheries, and agriculture.
So the objective is therefore to have coexistence between bird conservation and healthy aquatic ecosystems, and to allow fisheries and agriculture to thrive as well. Next, please. The framework includes several key objectives: first, improving data collection and trends reporting on cormorant populations, inland fisheries and agriculture; second, improving our understanding of ecological, economic and social impacts of cormorants; third, development of developing management measures to protect vulnerable fish species while maintaining a favorable conservation status of the birds; fourth, implement measures to reduce and mitigate the impact of cormorant predation on fisheries and agriculture. Fifth, facilitate the use of Article 9 derogations. Sixth, promote cross-border cooperation and harmonization of management approaches, and finally, establish a European platform for stakeholder engagement and information exchange.
Next, please. The framework follows a standard adaptive management cycle. This is nothing new for you. You have discussed and endorsed many fisheries management plans that use similar approaches, engaging stakeholders at all stages of the management cycle. The approach includes assessing the ecological and socioeconomic status and trends, identifying management options, selecting appropriate policy measures, implementing actions and their monitoring, and regularly evaluating and adjusting the approach.
This adaptive approach allows management to evolve as scientific information becomes available. Next, please. To support implementation of the framework, we propose establishing a Cormorant Management Plan Secretariat. This coordination unit would support the management advisory group for Cormorants, the CEMAG, for which, to date, 23 countries have already nominated their experts, then to maintain European databases and a monitoring platform, coordinate cooperation between member states, and regularly report to the European Parliament. The estimated costs are about EUR $5,000,000 per year.
And considering that the annual economic damage caused by the common predation of fish costs more than EUR $350,000,000 per year. This represents a very modest investment to support a coordinated European solution. Next, please. So what are the key messages for the European Parliament? First of all, the large corn population affects fisheries, agriculture and biodiversity across Europe.
The population buildup for over 30 years cannot be solved rapidly. There is no rapid solution. The migratory nature of Great requires coordinated European action. The framework for a European management plan for Great Cormorant has been developed in a participatory stakeholder engaging process with hundreds of stakeholders and has Europe-wide support from Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, but also Environment, all kinds of stakeholder groups. And the framework plan provides a balanced, science-based and adaptive approach.
Endorsement by the European Parliament and IFAC 33, which takes place in Riga, Latvia, in October, can enable its practical implementation. So honorable members of the parliament, the framework for the European plan for the great cormorant presented here today provides a balanced, science-based and cooperative approach to addressing the cormorant fish conflict in Europe and to support inland fisheries and agriculture to flourish again. I would like to thank you for your attention. Over to you again. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you, professor. Thank.
thank you very much. We'll now give the floor to the coordinators. You've got three minutes each. Let's start with EPP, Mr. Kalanick.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you very much indeed, chair, and thank you for that presentation on cormorants and the great cormorants, and the impact on the fish and agriculture, and looking at the measures you suggest. And we believe that these would result in concrete results. Now you said we need a cooperation between member states, and Article nine, its derogation, should be applied. I do have a first question on the 500,000. What budget would this come from?
I imagine it will be from EMF, but I would like an answer on this. And then there was work on predators that we voted on last week, in plenary. Predators will have an impact on fisheries and agriculture, and this backs up this work. Now I think that the point you make in the presentation could be applied elsewhere as well. Now I come from Brittany, and we have an issue with predators at the crabs, or blue crabs, which attack our muscle farms.
I was wondering whether your point here could be applied more across the board. I'm just giving you this example. The profession itself has drafted its program. We often have a case where in different areas, different regions, which come up with programs which are financed under the EMF. This in this particular case in Brittany is called Spider.
Now as a result of climate change, we're looking at a different impact this might have on different measures are taken, thanks to the MF. Now I'm raising this point because in the 2028, 2034 MFF, we're looking at a cut of two three in the MFF budget. We really do need funding. We need scientific research. We need testing.
So I think this is going to be a serious problem going forward. And I hope that the representatives, the commissioner with us here today are hearing what I have to say. Now you said, and I agree that we have to make good use of legislation designed to regulate populations, and I think that's true. Our problem today is to find the appropriate balance when
Isabelle Le Callennec
comes to regulation. So I hope the commissioner is listening. We do need measures to be taken in our regions to reduce the impact of this population. I do believe the measures you've suggested would have an impact. And as the chair said, we find ourselves in a very tricky situation when it comes to the fishing sector as a whole.
You talked about support mechanisms for our fishers who are faced with considerable increases in fuel costs as well. So we believe the commission should be looking more closely at this. The member states should also and are trying to support the sector, but these are problems which are here to stay, it seems. So thank you very much indeed, chair, for raising this issue right at the beginning of our committee meeting. Thank you very much indeed, madam Kalanick, mister Rodriguez for S and D.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
Thank you very much indeed, chair, colleagues. The growing population of great conquerors in Europe is leading to a real imbalance between the protection of the environment and the sustainability of human activity, especially agriculture. In several inland and coastal regions, including the Azores and other Atlantic regions, we are seeing an ever-increasing impact of bird populations, which have an economic impact on local populations. Now the government is protected under the Birds Directive, which restricts the number of mechanisms which were available to member states to tackle this problem. However, against this backdrop, I wanted to raise briefly what European measures could be used, which could be mobilized to protect those farmers and fishers affected by this increasing problem.
Yes. Yes.
Stephen Nikola Bartulica
Thank you. I was speaking Croatian. Since.
The beginning of my term of office, when contacting fishermen, they informed me about the problems caused by the great cormorant. And I have stressed several times in the European Parliament that Europe has lost its balance between sustainability and the protection of the interests of fishermen. Aquaculture is a strategic activity, which, among other things, should represent a compensation for reducing the pressure in open waters. However, farmers are on the verge of collapse due to the damage caused by cormorants. They are on the verge of collapse.
Apart from direct damage, they are also vectors for fish diseases, which is another cause of damage to fishermen. Certain fish species in open waters have already been extinguished due to cormorants. Despite.
Stephen Nikola Bartulica
Fact that we are aware of that, we are not doing anything about it. We are talking about intervention measures such as scaring and visual detraction of cormorants. And it takes cormorants three days to adapt to those. Derogations, which are not approved in certain countries or are approved and then immediately abolished, are a good example. Then there are certain nets that could be placed on smaller services.
And we are talking about fish farms, which are much larger. All recommended methods have been tested and have not yielded the desired results. We strongly support the adoption of the European Ocean Act, which should ensure sustainability. But before that, we need to provide all prerequisites for the existing and new measures covered by this document. So I do support this document.
And I believe that along with that, cormorants should urgently be put on the list of species that can be hunted. In that way, we will better manage the population of cormorants in other areas, not just fish farms. I believe that in that way, their population should be managed to achieve their size, allowing the damage to be reduced to the minimum, which means that we will also achieve a better balance in sustainability. Our fisherman has been asking for this for a long time, and it's time to act. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Muchas gracias. Second, thank you very much. Moving on. Madam Wiesner, renew. I remember the first time.
Emma Ytterell
Deadway Hayland.
Dead. Completely white. No life could no longer be there because of the comrades. So thank you for this report and really underlining the need for common measures. I think that message was very clear.
I have a question regarding this article nine that you mentioned that is not fully implemented and fully used. My question is, why? Why not? Why isn't article nine accepted, used, and implemented? Because I think that is something I often face as a counterargument that there are already measures in birds directive, in the habitat directive that could be used, but they are not fully done so.
And that is why we, as Renew, have asked for a management plan and stricter measures because we see the same thing. But my question is a little bit why. I'm so sorry. I have voting in 8 minutes, so I have to go, but my team will listen for the answer. Don't worry.
We are here in the room, and they will let me know, of course. So thank you so much.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Leuven, for the Greens.
Thank you very much for the presentation. I'm over here to the experts. I'm over here. Yeah. So I would like to ask you, yes, if you're listening.
So we have a quite poor track record as humans of the result of removing one species, and we can't really predict what happens in the ecosystem when we do so. For example, in the Baltic Sea, we have seen a recent big increase of sticklebacks, a small fish in size, but in numbers, it has a devastating impact on other fish species. And this has exploded due to climate change, but also because of the removal of cod and other species there. So it turns out that scientific examination of stomach contents of cormorants show that in certain areas, the cormorants are almost exclusively eating sticklebacks. So this is one thing that kind of must alert us to being cautious.
When we try to remove, we try to fix one problem, we're creating another problem. So we will have to have real scientific assessments before going into drastic actions. So that is one question. What kind of scientific evaluation and monitoring are you suggesting to take place before, during, and after any intervention? Also on the costs, you estimated some €350,000,000 cost of the impact. Of course, we can't reduce, we can't take away all cormorants.
So there will still be a remaining cost, right? But you haven't mentioned the cost of any of the interventions, cost of the assessments, cost of the actual interventions, and cost of the follow-up of the effectiveness of these measures. So that will also be interesting to hear. What is your estimate about that? Also, the estimates you made were costs related to inland fisheries and to recreational fisheries.
And we all know that the added value of recreational fisheries is high. It's really high. So maybe you can explain a little bit the relation between inland fisheries and recreational fisheries. And of course, I am very much in favor of recreational fishermen and their right to fish. But a little bit here in the Fisheries Committee, we're talking about marine fisheries mostly, not inland fisheries because that's not the competence of the EU.
So it's a little bit mixing apples and pears here, I think, when comparing the cost for a cormorant committee with the costs of recreation, the loss for recreational fisheries and inland fisheries. And I want the committee to be really aware of that. Also, I wonder if you, as an expert, could also agree that making sure that we have sustainable, resilient fish stocks would provide for those natural species that we have to have food without us doing these interventions that could have knock-on effects to spread on the ecosystem if we start trying to manage every species one by one. And we also heard from the colleague from Brittany. She was asking about the blue crab.
And there's all sorts of species that could impact fisheries, but we can't really have committees on each and every one of them. Do you agree with that? Thank you.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much. Thanks for your interest in the presentation. I don't really have that many questions to ask, other than I'd like to hear answers to the questions that were already asked. And in particular, to address the concern that there might be unintended consequences. And, if we look back in at history of, as the previous speaker has said, of removing species, it might sound like a great idea until you discover what's gonna happen down the line.
And to me, the most important thing that should be taken into account here is scientific information, and this should be done for scientific reasons and not for political reasons, because I think doing things for political reasons has caused us enough problems already. But, there are a lot of questions asked there. I'd be curious to hear the answer to it, and in particular, in relation to funding and the amount of money it's gonna cost. Thank you.
Thank.
Francisco José Millán Mon
thank you very much. I'll now give the floor to members, Mister Miannon from the EPP. Thank you, chair, and thank you for that presentation, the presentation of the management plan for cormorants. You said, this isn't a new problem. We have taken resolutions in this committee on many occasions over the last 20 years.
As you said, this started in 2008. Let me remind you that in July 2016, I don't know. I, at that occasion, presented a question to the commission calling for an EU-wide harmonized approach tackling the possible planning of measures to manage the current population. Now with the Birds Directive, the species has recovered from decades of decline, but it's clear that this has led to considerable pressure on fish populations, aquatic ecosystems, meaning economic loss. Looking at €350,000 per year for the coastal communities.
Now in the Birch directives, as you said, this does allow for national plans to prevent damage, but this hasn't proved sufficient because many members don't directly implement these and also because of the migratory nature of the great comrade. This is why we believe the commission should implement other measures. And I believe that the points that you have covered in your presentation warrant our attention. We need to look at achieving a balance between the conservation measures for the birds and ensuring a positive impact for fish populations as well. Now we are not focused on protecting solely one species.
We want a balanced ecosystem. We want to ensure sustainable fishing as well. Therefore, turning to you, I would like a chair to know what the representative of the commission thinks about this. What is their position on a possible management plan? If I understood correctly, I believe that DG Imare supported the authors of this report or perhaps prior did finance it, I'd be interested to hear your position on the initiative as a whole.
And what is the legal opinion or the legal basis for implementing such a management plan? I would like to hear from the commission on this point, chair. Thank you.
Yes. After Mister Kov speaks, the commission will have the opportunity to outline their position on this. Thank you very much. Give the floor to Mr. Rosen from ECR. Thank you, madam chair.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much to the AFAC representatives for the presentation they've given us, for presenting this congregant-managed plan. It's clear that the population of cormorants is increasing. It's a challenging issue for fish stocks and for aquaculture. If you just look at the Western Balkans, for example, we're looking at 15,000,000 cord suffering from this problem. It really is a serious issue, and therefore, I am delighted to see that there is now a framework in place for a possible management plan.
Thank you very much for the work that you've done on this. I have a question for the commission. What about the timeline for all of this? And what is the commission going to do? When is the commission going to implement this management plan?
Because the time is now. The time has come. We must act. This framework cannot be thrown into a drawer and forgotten. The commission must implement it now.
Moreover, I'd like the commission to tell us about the guidelines on the use of derogations as set out under the Birds Directive. What is the set of play with these dire guidelines? When will they be updated? Will there be an update to these guidelines? And what does that really mean?
Is it going to help us to manage the common stocks better? Another question. My question is when will the cormorants be registered under annex two of the Birds Directive? What do the experts think? Isn't now the time to think about putting these birds into annex two, so that we can take more efficient action?
Nora Junco García
Thank you. Thank you, Miss Junko Garcia from ECR. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you very much for the report because it shows us that the great common is no longer a species that is endangered. It's hypocritical that the European Commission is protecting these birds where we're seeing a huge harm being caused to stocks and fishers.
Eel, trout, and so on, are suffering. In Spain, the ecological environment cannot go on any longer. Salmon is being affected. In the Mediterranean, Valencia, Morfia, there, we're seeing more issues as well. Diversity isn't just about protecting one species and bringing about an imbalance.
It's about protecting the whole system. And, therefore, we would like the cormorant to be included under annex two of the birds directive because the cormorant should be a manageable species so that we can protect our fish and water bodies. We need a management plan for the cormorants today. Otherwise, in the future, we're going to see a biological desert in the South of Europe. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you very much. With that, we close the round of contributions from the members. Next, professor Cox and doctor will have the floor for 10 minutes to answer the questions received. After that, the commission will have the floor for 5 minutes. So, professor Kautz, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much for all these very good observations and the questions asked. To some of the questions, we wouldn't have an answer. Probably DG the Mare or DG Environment will answer this. On the question related to the budget, where does the budget come from? We have now this project has been produced, this framework has been produced with small funds from the MFAV.
And it's a decision eventually by the European Parliament and the Commission how to make this coordination unit work, and whether this is going to be a coordination unit established under IFAC or within another institution of the European Union. That is a decision you have to make. But the coordination itself between the countries is time-consuming, especially because of the migratory relationships, migration of the birds. And so if you want to have an effect in one country, then you have to take measures in the other country. That discussion also, and the information collecting from the different countries is taking time and put it in a database. It has a cost.
But yes, the funds cannot come from, for instance, the IFAC budget because the IFAC budget is very tiny. So from our side, we will not be able to take this on board as an extra task. Also, because yes, IFAC is, of course, a fishery advisory body. So this would come on top of it, and therefore, it is a task. Then another question was related to the plan, whether it should also involve other species, other predatory species, and maybe my colleague, Mr.
Kauks, can answer that one. There was a suggestion that we should also look wider towards the other predatory species of fish.
Speaker 29
Thank you, and thank you for the questions. I'll just reflect on something. I sat in this room 14 years ago discussing the same issue, and no action has taken place, and the problem has just exacerbated since that time. The comment numbers have gone up quite considerably in that time, and the problems have gotten a lot worse. There are problems, except caused by other species, as people have discussed, crabs being one.
Speaker 28
We have problems with other bird species. We have problems. I'm not sorry. It's not the words, not problems. There are predation by other bird species, by seal, by mink, by otter, and they are causing problems.
Speaker 29
And they are all control measures taking place on those species to try to minimize those impacts. But it comes into the same sorts of criteria as we have with the birth directive and the Annex nine delegations. The problem we have with the delegations is that some countries apply them quite well. Some countries do not allow for the delegations to take place. And some countries, it is a very hard process to get the derogations through and, in fact, meets the legal action in some cases.
So it's very uncoordinated across the European arena. What is needed, though, is a coordinated approach. What we have is actions that work locally. They're very expensive for the people who take it. They don't act beyond perhaps moving the cormorant problem onto their neighbors, whether that's the next farm or the next river, or the next country, but that is the sort of situation that's happening.
It needs to be more coordinated, more balanced. The concept here is to manage the growing government population and particularly expanding, as our colleagues said, from Spain moving south. Congress wasn't there in large numbers in the past. And even before the persecution took place of governments a hundred years ago, they weren't there. So these are expanding their range, their distribution, and causing increasing problems.
We've also got to look at the relationship, not just the economic relationships, but the biodiversity. We, as somebody mentioned, salmon is critical. Eels are critically endangered. And the problem is that the recovery of these cormorants is one of the issues that's preventing recovery. So we can improve our habitats, we can and we're investing. Europe is investing huge amounts of money in recovery.
But things are not recovering because they're being suppressed in the recovery process. And we have to find a mechanism which allows the recovery of our fish populations to become sustainable and to maintain the common populations. And that is what the framework that we have provided aims to do.
Speaker 6
To respond to a question on the time frame, in principle, we can organize the first meeting of the Commerent Management Advisory Group in July. Already 20 countries have nominated their experts, and we could organize this to formalize the Corporate Management Advisory Group, finalize the terms of reference of the group, develop the work plan for the group to get action going. So that is what we can do from our side, and we will support this with staff time, and the countries have agreed to support it as well. And then after that, the next step, where you go into the implementation of the work plan at the national level, most of the cost will have to be borne by the countries, that is the research institutions to collect the data, certificate files, help with accounting. There is foreseen next year a new cormorant census.
So help with these kind of activities, data collection, joint research, also the ringing to really find out, okay, where do specific groups of cormorants breed, where do they winter, to address the problem. So that kind of work has to be done at the national level and will have a cost. So we were talking in the cost of EUR $5,000,000 that was mentioned. This is mainly coordination cost, database-related cost, and some technical assistance for those countries that cannot do this by themselves. Then on there was a question on the article of the move to the Annex II of the birth directive.
Why can't the species be placed on the huntable species list? Now that has been requested by many of the Scandinavian Baltic countries. They have actually all requested that. I believe recently also in the Ministerial Council meeting a couple of months ago. So it has been requested by a large number of countries.
It hasn't been put as such in this plan because, at the time of the writing of the plan, there were still quite a few countries that were not convinced. They said we should first try to continue working in the way that we do, and maybe consider moving the species to the huntable species annex, but there was no general agreement on this. And of course, there was the opposition from the environmental NGOs to this. So that's why we wanted to present this plan as a balanced plan based on scientific advice, and that's why we didn't include it as a major solution. Of course, it is part of the overall solution, and I think that a majority of the countries actually agree with it.
Can.
Speaker 29
I just add that the plan is based on evidence, scientific evidence. So a lot of work was put in to pull all the scientific evidence there to show that there is impact. And if you read the plan, the front end of it has got a lot of information to support the arguments that we're actually putting forward. There is a need for more work. There is a project going on, called Protect Fish, Horizon Project, and the coordinator is sitting at the back of the room at the moment, if you need to talk to her.
And that project is actually looking at the further impact on river fisheries. I will point out that the plan covers coastal fisheries as well as river or inland waters, because the problem, you can't separate the two. So it's very important you look at the coastal and inland waters together, and that's what the plan is engaged to do.
Thank.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you very much to professor Kaukes and doctor Van An Roijn. Now we'll give the floor to the commission, Miss Loewa de la Crux Iglesias, deputy head of unit Digimari, for five minutes.
Thank.
Speaker 31
Thank you very much, mister chair. And, well, thank you for all the comments that were made regarding this presentation. And thank you, of course, to IFAC and the presentation that made on this framework. Indeed, yes, I would like to confirm indeed that we supported this work that IFAC has done because, as you know, the Commission is aware of the concerns that we have from producers, in our case notably from aquaculture producers on the impact of this species of the red cormorant on their economic viability, but also there are other concerns regarding biodiversity and also fishing. We have indeed, from the beginning of the current strategy on EU aquaculture, recognized this problem.
Speaker 36
And as you know, the strategic guidelines adopted in 2021 for EU aquaculture, we mentioned this issue, especially in relation to freshwater aquaculture. And in that strategy, we have a mandate to work on guidance, some good practices on this issue, not only the Great Cormorant, but on all predators for aquaculture. And just wanted to signal that the European Ocean Pact also refers to this issue, and confirms that the commission will work on guidance on how to handle this conflict between aquaculture and predators. We are aware of the concerns and the statements that have been made by the producers, by Member States, by the European Parliament in several locations, or the fact that individual or local action is not enough, that there's a need to that the available measures when applied at national level are not sufficient. And this is why we have supported the work of IFAC with a grant under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund.
Speaker 31
We really appreciate the work that IHOP has been doing in terms of collecting scientific evidence, engaging the stakeholders, and enlarging the knowledge base for tackling this issue. We have, as Commission, been working as well. And when I say the Commission has been working, I'm talking about not only Digimare, but Digimare closely working together with the environment on this issue at this time. So I think that has to be recognized. And I would like to pass the floor to my colleague here, Andrea Abertori, the Head of Unit responsible for the first directive, to explain a bit further what has been done and what is planned in the future.
Thank you.
Speaker 32
Thank you. Thank you, Lorella. Indeed, the commission fully acknowledges that the increase in Europe's karma and population over recent decades has led in certain regions to increasing conflicts with some economic activities such as fisheries, aquaculture and recreational angling. Preventive measures can and should be implemented whenever feasible to prevent or mitigate potential damage to fisheries and aquaculture. However, if the technical solutions prove ineffective and no satisfactory solution are available, the birth directive allows, as explained by the expert, for derogation from the general protection regime, which include, of course, the use of lethal control when duly justified and proportionate.
Speaker 33
As said, some member states extensively use this opportunity while some others prefer not to do so. There are some 90,000 birds that are already killed today under this derogation. To step up its support to national authorities and ensure consistent and effective approaches in line with Commissioner Roosevelt's commitment in the AgriFish Council. In October, the commission initiated a structured dialogue with competent national authorities to better understand the challenges regarding the use of derogations and to identify ways the commission can offer to support member states. During this dialogue, the commissioner also discussed with member state competent authorities the proposal to mandate the agreement on the conservation of Africa-Eurasian migrating water birds secretariat to develop an international single species management plan for the great cormorant, to facilitate cooperation across the entire flyway.
Speaker 32
Adi was done successfully already for the barnacle goose. Indeed, as explained by the expert, the scientists, this is a migratory species. And so we need to have really an approach on the flyway of these species. However, a lack of consensus among member states delegate prevented the EU from advancing the proposal at the last COP in Germany. The commissioner remains, nevertheless, committed to supporting member states in their individual and collaborative actions addressing the government-related conflicts, engaging with both member states and stakeholders to promote inclusive and effective solutions.
So first, we need to close the knowledge gaps about the cormorant population, their size, distribution, and migration patterns. Robust knowledge has been highlighted as an essential element for effective strategies in managing conflict. Plans for another pan European count, the last one mentioned was in 2013, of breeding colonies of the great cormorants is under consideration for 2027. And the commission is reflecting on how to support this effort. Secondly, the commission is finalizing a guidance document on the general system of protection of birds under the bird directive.
The document will include a dedicated annex on the Great Cormorant and will offer legal guidance to member state authorities. It will also highlight flexibilities in the implementation of birth directive and present successful solutions and good practices that can be used as models, integrating conservation with socioeconomic activities and objectives. Third, the commission will continue actively working on building consensus with the member states to propose giving a mandate to Aehwa for a common management plan for the next COP. Fourth, we will continue the structured dialogue with member states, discussing solutions and exchanges on good processes. Finally, during 2026, the commission will also stress test the Birds and Abira directive to evaluate whether they remain relevant, proportionate, and efficient in achieving their objectives in a cost-effective manner.
Of course, the mechanism to amend the annexes of the directive will be part of this stress test. And finally, the commission remains ready to work with IFAC and member states and support them in their efforts to enhance collaboration of member state competent authorities in the adoption of management measures to prevent and mitigate the impact of the great corn on population on aquaculture and fisheries, as long as those actions are consistent with EU legislation, of course. This enhanced collaboration could support the future mandate of a corn management plan under the Iowa under the flyway. Thank you very much for your attention.
Speaker 31
Yes. Thank you. Just wanted to react to the question on funding that we haven't addressed yet. Well, as you know, most of you know, I'm sure, the MFAP allows member states to dedicate funding to help producers dealing with this issue of predation. And in fact, some member states are providing compensation for the impact of predation on aquaculture producers, notably.
So this is something that as long as member states have foreseen in their AMFAB programs, it is possible. And as I said, some member states are doing it. So, and in relation to the question of supporting IFAC on further additional funding on the work they intend to do, that we have to check internally whether that would be possible. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you very much. Briefly, Miss Leuven, you ask for the floor. Go ahead.
Isabella Lövin
Yes. Thank you very much. I think it's important to know what we're talking about here. And I noted I forgot to ask last time, you know you said that there are some 2,000,000 comments in Europe. I'm a bit confused here because what we see at the BSAC statement from 2024, they're talking about 200000 breeding pairs of cormorants in the Baltic.
Also, we have an impact study from the European Parliamentary Research Service. It's talking about 253 breeding pairs and approximately 549,000 wintering birds in the EU 27. So to me it seems like there's some different figures here. And next year, we'll probably have a census. So what do you base the $2,000,000 on?
Also, you didn't answer the predation of sticklebacks and the possible unwanted effects of removing one species? And also, you mentioned how cormons are eating eels and salmon, and we need to protect eels and salmon. Have you any figures comparing the cormorants' predation as to mortality of hydropower, illegal fisheries, and legal fisheries on these species? Thank you.
Firstly,
Speaker 34
I'll briefly give the floor to the professors if you would like to answer, Miss Louis Leuven. And then after that, the commission can have the floor again, briefly. Go ahead.
Speaker 29
You. I'll come back to the numbers of cormorants first. The numbers you're talking about are breeding pairs. You multiply that by six. The normal rule of thumb is that there are two breeding pairs, of course, and then there's four offspring is the usual way. The other thing is that we're looking at Europe as a whole, not just the EU.
So we have to account for other countries, certainly the Eastern countries that are included in it. There is also the breeding pairs, but the figures you're giving are Baltic, which are the breeding populations. The breeding populations are moving beyond the Baltic systems now. So they're breeding elsewhere within Europe, with climate change and things just shifting their processes.
Sticklebacks.
Speaker 29
Yeah. The unwanted effects, I think we've got to be very careful here about what we're looking at. Is it comments? Is it other environmental factors? And in the Baltic, of course, we have many other environmental factors acting on it, eutrophication being a significant one, which tends to lead to things like sticklebacks proliferating.
The cormorants will eat them. I was in Prague the other day, about a month ago, where we were looking at cormorants on some of the rivers. There are many cormorants now starving. They cannot survive on eating cormorants. They're moving to things like round gobies, which are invasive species, and they are perhaps helping, and I use the word very lightly, helping to control those species, but they are surviving on them.
Speaker 6
Amphibians also. Mentioned amphibians. Sorry. Yeah. So there's also more and more evidence that cormorants, when they don't have enough fish to eat, are targeting amphibians like small salamanders, frogs, and so on.
And that is another problem for the habitats directive, of course, if you want to implement it.
Speaker 29
Just to finish, isolating cormorants from other factors such as hydropower, most of that activity has taken place many years ago. And actually, we're retracting from it, if you look at what's going on. We're reconnecting our river systems. So we're allowing migratory species to move back into places they're going. They're not recovering.
Part of it is I'm not saying it's all cormorants. Very far from it. To tease out what each aspect of it is requires a lot of scientific evidence. And part of that has been collected during the PROTECT FISH project. They're actually starting to pull, try to pull that type of information together.
We have a lot of scientific evidence built up, which is beginning to show this. It needs to be synthesized. It takes time to pull it together as you recognize. But the evidence is beginning to show that there are major contributors to it, to, I would say, the lack of recovery rather than the loss of. And some cases, some species are virtually exterminated in rivers, but that's, but the recovery of those species is being suppressed, and that's what we have to look at.
The you know, there's a lot of information out there. A lot was collected as part of this project that still has not been synthesized, particularly some of the economic information. So it's taken us time to pull that together. So there's a lot more of this information we can provide to support the arguments that we're putting forward.
Speaker 6
To respond to the observation from the European Commission on the Iowa single species management plan, from the start of this process in 2024, we have been in touch with the Iowa Secretariat asking if they are willing to collaborate with us on this. It was clearly said that the Iowa Secretariat responded to us that they don't have the mandate from their members to work on cormorants. There was no interest because it was not an important enough species to work on this. Over the course, we have kept Iowa Secretariat and members informed in the development. And then also next to last week, I contacted again the Iowa Secretariat.
And again, it was mentioned that in the last meeting of the parties in October, November, there was no interest from the member states of EIOA to make a single species management plan for the great cormorant. And also, no activities in the intercessional period from the technical committees or the standing committees are taking place related to cormorants. So they don't see it as an issue. Now the proposal from DG Environment to raise this again in the next meeting of the parties of Aeva in 2028, of course, that is possible. But remember this, that the Aeva single species management plans are actually shorter than this plan that has been put before you.
So this plan that has been put in front of you is much more detailed than most of the Iowa single species management plans, just so that you are aware of this. So I don't know if it is a solution. Of course, it is a migratory birds agreement, but that doesn't guarantee the implementation. That's, I think, the only thing that I would like to say about it, that I appreciate very much the observations from the DG MAR and DG Environment, and the collaboration we had in this process so far with the colleagues from the commission. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 34
Thank you very much, professors. DG, Mare, I don't know if you have any comments.
Speaker 31
Just to signal that we are aware of this issue, and we are working as a commission on addressing it. As my colleague mentioned, there are still knowledge gaps to cover. We mentioned the census for next year. So we are working towards clarifying what is the situation of this species and what the measures are. What I would like to highlight is that we are, of course, willing to continue collaborating with IFAC.
We should, I think, avoid duplication of efforts because we mentioned we have already planned certain actions as a commission. So just to signal that we are ready to continue cooperating with IFAC and try to find a way to make measures dealing with these species effective as possible while preserving the conservation objectives. Thank you. Thank.
Speaker 34
Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you to the professors. Thank you to the commission. Thank you to the members who took part in the discussion. I'm sure it won't be the last time we have you with us, gentlemen.
Speaker 37
So if you don't mind, I would like to close this point. Final comment? Yes. You. Quickly, please.
Speaker 6
So thank you very much, madam Chair. Members of the committee, we would like to ask the parliament to endorse the framework and support a small European coordination mechanism so the member states can implement effective science based management of this cross border issue. So parliament endorsement would help translate years of research and dialogue into practical action across Europe. Thank you very much.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you. As I said, it won't be the last time, I'm sure that we see you here, and I'm sure the committee members will ensure that's the case. So, thank you. Next item is the Pesche Mission to the Seychelles, which took place from the seventeenth to February 20. Delegation was made up of mister Valanmont, mister Denisi Mentra Cabral, miss Anna Chogulu, miss Dreza, and madam Wiesner.
Madam Wiesner led the delegation on behalf of Mister Milazzo. You have the floor for five minutes to tell us what happened during the mission.
Emma Ytterell
So much. I have the honor of reporting back from our mission. It was February, where the delegation went to Seychelles on the follow-up on the fisheries relations with the Seychelles Island. First of all, thank you to all the colleagues in the delegation. I think I speak for all of us when I say it was a very interesting and very useful mission.
We learned a lot, but it was also very pleasant. We had a good time. We were following up on the EFPA as well as the work that we're doing on the IOTC. Unfortunately, mister Milazzo had to leave the island very early, and that is why I was acting head of the delegation. We had a very intense program.
We met with the Seychell government, President, Parliament, the Seychell Fisheries Authority, the EU operators on the ground. We visited the fishing vessels, processing facilities, and projects supported by the SFPA. We visited the secretariat of the IOTC and its headquarters in The Seychelles, and we met with a speaker as well as a member of the National Assembly in Seychelles, all of this in three days. So it was a very intense program, but it was very useful. First of all, I think the timing was very sensitive.
Both that the agreement was about to expire only five, four days after our visit, but also that the Seychelles Islands have a newly elected government and parliament since October. So it means it was an interesting phase also for the local politicians. And it has been clear that this fisheries agreement has been very politicized on the island. So the relationships with The Seychelles are more important than ever. It was extremely good timing, or maybe, as Paolo, you said once, maybe we were too late even.
We should have been there maybe even earlier, but that we went anyway was very good. We had very good, open, frank exchanges with official authorities, fisheries, entrepreneurs, scientists, interest representatives, and other stakeholders. And being able to discuss openly and freely is really invaluable, and I think it's safe to say for all of those members that we are very thankful for the meeting that we had. The agreement with the Seschel's has been in place since 1984, so more than 40 years. And more than once during our visits, we made a similarity to a relationship, and even a marriage was entered in discussions at some point.
But after more than forty years, it was very clear that the timing that it was about to expire only a few days later, made the issue very sensitive. And it gives a clear indication that we have a long-standing mutual beneficial fisheries relationship. We have had it for a long time. And for us as a delegation, it was very clear that for us, we want to see it being continued and to be developed. So we could really see the importance of the SFPAs, both for the EU and The Seychelles.
It's a win-win agreement in many senses, but it's also benefiting the fishing sector and the institutions and projects that it supports, not the least when it comes to the fisheries authorities on the island. A sign that we mentioned several times during our visit is that even though the EU budget is cut heavily on the fishing sector, we are willing as a union to spend and increase spending and increase funding on this agreement, and that they should see that as a clear signal that this is something that the EU is charging, that we are valuing. But as I said, it was very much politicized on the island. We discussed and also listened to the concerns of the EU operators. We could see the firsthand sophisticated port infrastructure and processing facilities in Port Victoria, but also discuss with the IOTC and the fishing opportunities that we have.
Some remarks, I think that the sectorial support for the EU, it's clearly bringing a lot of added value to the island. It's not necessarily the most political issues that the island and the local politicians are needing. It's not necessarily responding to the local needs of our partners. And I think it's a little bit more too focused on what the EU wants to see happening on the island, not what the local authorities want to see happening on the island. So I think that when modernizing our partnerships agreement, that is definitely something we should look at.
I would also like to express that I believe it's very important that we continue our good cooperation with the Seychelles. Geopolitically, it's very important also with cooperation. The democratic and stable government on the Seychelles Island, given also its localization, I think it's a very important strategic partner for the European Union. I would also like to stress the importance of transparency in our cooperation that we should aim also when going forward to increase the level of transparency, both when it comes to how funding is directed, but also when it comes to our joint effort to have good and sustainable fisheries management beneficial for both partners. Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to express my thankfulness to the Sesha authorities, all interlocutors on the ground for their time, their hospitality, for the EU Commission, Delphine Gouchet.
I just wanna clearly also mention her. She really took care of us and gave us a good introduction and whole setup of the visit. I would like to thank my colleagues who joined this mission as well as the Pesht Secretariat for the organization, the very intense program, and all the setup around this mission. It was overall a great success.
Francisco José Millán Mon
Thank you very much. And now the colleagues that were on the mission, mister Mian won first. Very briefly, I have very little to add to what's already been said by madam Wiesner as head of the delegation, and she was excellent as head of the delegation. I feel I have to say that in public. I think it was a very useful mission, partly because of the expiry of the agreement and the timing of that.
And in fact, we're going to have a point on agreements, and we're going to be discussing those in camera. And hopefully, the commission will be able to tell us what's happening in the negotiations. Now the agreement is a very important one. It creates wealth in The Seychelles, and we have landing in the port, provides jobs and wealth. I have to admit, I had a very good impression of the way the port worked.
Madam Wiesner mentioned how sophisticated the equipment was. Yes, very high level. And the same, I think, goes with the installations in general that we saw on the island. And we saw how well everything works. And I think actually, therefore, Port Victoria should actually be held up as a member of the network that we have of ports that could be incentive for signing the agreement.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Thank you very much. Mister Anika Tzegoglou.
Dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank everyone for this very nice experience we had during this mission of the committee to the Seychelles. And I have to say that the cooperation between the MEPs, the political groups, the secretariat, the interpreters, the technical support staff meant that we were working with professionalism, with real dialogue and human warmth. And I need to mention especially Emma, that was really excellent as the head of this mission. She was professional, calm, and collected, and this is something that we all appreciated, as well as Delphine Bouchette from DG Mara for her work and continued support. Now it was very important for me to see how this cooperation with the SEHELs works in action.
This is a country that is one of the hotspots of tuna fishing in the Indian Ocean. We visited Victoria, Port Victoria, the fisheries monitoring center, as well as processing facilities. And you can see how important fisheries are to the economy of The Seychelles, as well as how important this country is for the international tuna fishing fleet in the Indian Ocean. In Victoria, we have one of the largest tuna processing factories in the world, Indian Ocean Tuna Limited. We had the chance to meet the president, the minister for fisheries, as well as the Seychelles Fishing Authority and people from the fishing industry.
We also had some talks of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission concerning the viability of the fish stocks in the Indian Ocean. At the same time, we had the opportunity to see the fisheries control mechanisms in action, as well as the specific measures that are taken against illegal fishing. This was very useful in order to understand how the cooperation of the EU works in action concerning sustainable fishing. Our visit took place at a special juncture in time, because the protocol of cooperation with the sales for the period 2020, 2026, was running out in January 2026. And, of course, we had to agree to a new protocol in order for the EU fishing fleet to be able to operate in the waters of the Seychelles.
So we can see that the negotiations are still going on, but there are still some differences as to the financial part. Despite that, the general picture we got was that both sides want this cooperation to continue for the EU. The Seychelles are a very important basis of activity of the European tuna fleet in the Indian Ocean, whereas for Seychelles, fisheries are a main pillar of their economy. At the same time, this cooperation is connected with the discussion taking place at the international level concerning the viability of the tuna stocks in the Indian Ocean, especially within the IOTC. We think that the EU, through this cooperation, helps with high sustainability standards and in the fight against illegal fishing.
So I hope that pretty soon we will have a balanced agreement that will ensure viability for the European fleet, as well as the tuna stocks. Thank you very much.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you very much. Miss has the floor. Thank you very much, madam Chair. I'll be speaking in Portuguese. I'd like to express my thanks to madam Wiesner for the excellent way she led the delegation.
And that wasn't planned, but it was absolutely very timely, considering the expiry of the fisheries agreement between the EU and The Seychelles. We had a good relationship with the authorities of the Seychelles. I'd like to thank Delvin too from the commission for all of the cooperation, and I would endorse what colleagues have already said so far. I'd also like to stress the fact that one thing was clear is that this agreement is exemplary and should be, in fact, reproduced in other fisheries agreements. We have to ensure that the support from the EU to third countries into recognition of what the people there do, their populations.
Now obviously, this is a major investment. It's been a success story. But at the same time, there's a certain misalignment between the feeling amongst the normal people as to what happens to the major investments of the EU. Now all of the installations we saw were excellent, and the monitoring center was highly developed. But we need, I think, to reinforce our promotion of all the work that's done by the EU through its support.
And I'd stress too the excellence of the European fleet in its operations in Seychelles' waters. We had the opportunity to see highly sophisticated fishing vessels. And we heard as well about the fact that workers' rights are fully respected, and it's very positive to see the excellent conditions our fleet operates under. Now it's the first time I speak as first vice chair, so I would like to express my thanks to everybody that supported me for this post. And I hope that, in fact, I can bear out the confidence that you have indicated in nominating me, and I am and will continue to be at your disposal.
Speaker 34
Thank you, mister Donacimiento Cabral, and congratulations once again on being elected to the first vice chair. So mister Luis Molledo from the DG Maori Commission, you have the floor if you so wish.
Speaker 42
So good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to attend this debriefing. And thank you to the members of the parliament, for having performed this mission. I think it really reflects the importance that the EU attaches to our cooperation with CCEL. Like you said, it's a high-visibility SFPA. It is a technical agreement, but, with a very political angle.
And now, it is clear that we need to make a stronger communication effort to pass the messages about what the agreement represents for the population and for the sector and for the government and for the EU. Full agreement with the importance that this FPAs, this SFPA in concrete terms represent something that is mutually beneficial for the EU and for CECL. Forty years, it is forty years, indeed a long agreement. Also, full agreement about the willingness of the EU to highlight the benefits. And those benefits, they go beyond the SFPE itself. There is the Victoria Port.
There is the investment in the sector, the landings, the mutual objectives that we pursue together in the IOTC, in the regional fisheries management organization. BB and J, the experts, also good cooperation with Impa. So it is a very broad cooperation. There was a reference also about the sectoral support. Please be reassured that the sectoral support is something that is agreed with the government, that reflects the priorities of the government, and that is implemented together with the government and in accordance with their national policies.
Also, as well, there was a reference about increased transparency. I think we are already having a high level of transparency, but we will keep pushing for further improvements in terms of transparency, which I agree can only be beneficial for the partnership. And making a link with the new generation of SFPIs, so that will be part of our ambition to have more transparent agreements. And as to the state of play of the negotiations, I will debrief you when we go in camera. I understand, under the next point of the agenda. So, thank you.
Speaker 34
Thank you very much. Now, committee members. Mister Matar. No? Are there any committee members that would like the floor on this?
Isabelle Le Callennec
If not, I will, madam. Thank you, madam chair. One point because we're going to move to in camera. At the start of the committee meeting, our chair asked to raise the point about the increase in diesel prices and the impact that has on fish folk in the EU. Before we move into in camera, and as we have commission representatives here, I would like to reiterate, excuse me, no, because the situation is so serious for our fishfolk. I would like an answer from the commission about what kind of mechanisms we could use to provide support for Fishhook.
The member states are making suggestions. France, for example, suggested freezing prices at the pump and support for pre-bank loans. Why not some form of assistance at ports and the modernization of the fleet, which is a broader issue, which almost all of us support here? So could you tell us, because we're not in Canberra, could the commission tell us whether they have the intention to take measures vis-à-vis this increase of diesel price, which is really seriously jeopardizing European fisheries. Can someone please answer the question?
Isabella Lövin
Thank you. Madam Lervan.
To all the members reporting back from the visit to the Seychelles, very interesting. And I'm also very happy to hear that it seems to be an exemplary agreement. And to that effect, I'm also very happy to hear the commission underlining that we can also go further on transparency with this new SFPA. So this would be, I think, a really important step to put high standards for fisheries transparency in this and future SFPA protocols. In recent years, Seychelles has made all bilateral fishing access agreements publicly available, including a list of licensed vessels and their payments, catch and effort data, and so on.
But also, I think it would be a really fantastic step if we could require reporting on ultimate beneficial owners of fishing vessels, and companies maintaining a register of beneficial owners of fishing vessels would support both the EU and partner states to fulfill commitments and would be aligned with the OS Organization of African, Caribbean and Pacific States commitments to require reporting of ultimate beneficial owners. Is that something that the commission is foreseeing in its negotiations? Thank you.
Speaker 34
Mister Molledo from the commission, and madam Wiesner afterwards. Mister Molledo.
Speaker 42
So thank you very much. The short answer is yes. In the new agreements, the new protocols, there is an accent on beneficial owners, and Seychelles is one example of those. On the question of the prices of fuel, we can come back to this question in writing later. I don't have an answer right now.
Emma Ytterell
I think it was a pretty good summary. Thank you for colleagues and members that participated in this debriefing. Positive signals that we got from the Seshel government, the fishing minister when we were there, is that they are now taking initiative to invite for the next rounds of negotiations. They ensured us that they also want to see an agreement, but they always underline an echo not to any cost, and that we need to get more. And I think that is the whole political story on what's happening on the ground.
So on an EU perspective, again, I just wanna highlight how incredibly valuable I think this partnership is, giving also the geopolitical context that we are in. I would be very, very sad to see if these negotiations are stranded in any way. So I wish the commission good luck. Unfortunately, I will not be here for the in camera session, but just to underline how valuable I think that is and the good luck in the continuation of the negotiations.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you, Madam Fiesner, and congratulations on the mission. And now we are moving into in camera to hear about the negotiations on SFPAs, in particular with Morocco and Mauritania. So can those that are not authorized please leave the room, and then we will restart once that.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.