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 sittingsŽeljana Zovko
Such practices will affect the whole and entire ecosystem, which cannot regenerate in such isolated communities. This is also not due only to local activities, but also to cross border illegal activities, from third parties in the Adriatic. This brings the question of responsibility in the EU. Use of illegal tools and repeated infringements are not individual cases, but need to be diverted and need to be prevented with sanctions, and with a clear message that such practices will not be tolerated. Also, operational capacities in the field need to be strengthened, including a permanent presence of authorities closer to this area, for example, at the island of Wiese, because without such permanent presence at sea, rules will be just in theory.
We can speak about the frameworks and mechanisms, but witnesses say that rules exist, but they are not implemented efficiently. And the perception among the population is very important, because the common fisheries policy is tested in real circumstances at sea. And these situations are not an exception. This is a permanent situation which brings degradation of the environment, which cannot regenerate from overfishing, also economic injustice because those fishermen who respect the rules lose jobs while others do what they want. And third, enforcement of European rules in a cross-border context.
Therefore, the European dimension needs to be more visible in the operational part, and the Agency for Fisheries Control must be present in areas where there are structural limitations for member states. These are not isolated cases. This is a test for the EU to implement its rules in complex environments at sea. Currently, we see a gap between the policies and practice, so we need to strengthen coordination and implementation in areas such as Palagruzha Island before the damage becomes irreversible. Thank you.
Thomas Bajada
For Maltese, Cypriot, Greek, Italian, and other Mediterranean fishers, this is a daily reality. And this is not only for Maltese fishermen. We, they, our fishers face constant pressures from non-EU operators in nearby waters, in international waters, and sometimes even in EU waters. And this is not about economy, and this is not only about illegality and lack of compliance and enforcement, but our officials also face intimidation, unsafe situations at sea, and even direct threats. At the same time, those who follow the rules that are agreed upon internationally are put at a disadvantage.
And this is simply unfair because respecting the rules should not mean losing your livelihood and putting your life at risk. And the EU has the tools to fight EU phishing, and the issue is how we use them and implement them now. And enforcement must be stronger and more coordinated. Last year, I have worked to give the voice to small scale fishers in the Mediterranean, both as rapporteur on measures against countries allowing non sustainable fishing practices, and by pushing to strengthen the role of in supporting the commission in detecting IU activities. But more needs to be done, and we need stronger monitoring, more presence at sea, and real, tangible consequences for those who break the rules.
I have been part and headed the delegation to the GFCM last November, where I have worked closely with the commission and welcome the great results that they have achieved, including first action by Tunisia on cases of noncompliance and illegal fishing, including tangible action on a notorious vessel called Sonia. And in reply to my written question, the commission outlined that it has followed up with Tunisia on these infringements. So my first question to the commission will be, did you receive any reaction from the Tunisian authorities on these apprehended infringements? And secondly, are you considering any stronger actions in the face of sustained non-sustainable fishing by Tunisian and by other Mediterranean fisheries? I stress that this should not stop there.
We should also show a stronger arm, but also invest more in our authorities. Stronger investment in AFCA to strengthen its presence in the Mediterranean Sea and underline the presence of the currently present petrol vessel, but also the need for a second petrol vessel in the Mediterranean in light of the increased illegalities and non sustainable fishing across the whole Mediterranean. At the end of the day, we are here not only to serve our constituents, but to not leave people, our people, our fishers, in the middle of the Mediterranean stranded alone in the face of threats, illegal fishing, and also loss of their livelihood.
Very much. And now, miss.
You very.
France Jamet
Thank you very much, madam chair. Clearly, illegal fisheries in the Mediterranean are a scourge, which has been going on for a long time. We must remember that apart from the more basic poaching and plundering in the fisheries, there's also flora and fauna that is pillaged, to say nothing of failure to respect environmental standards. And this issue, as you rightly said, you know, all of these evils come under the acronym of IUU. But sometimes it's really an all-out war between the northern and southern sides of the Mediterranean.
There's this fishing war going on between Sicilians and Tunisians. And can I just remind you that for some time now, the EU has been closing its eyes to the Russian, Japanese, and Chinese vessels who openly, blatantly pillage our seas with impunity? And this is organized crime of these illegal fisheries with resale and laundering of proceeds going on with impunity, as I say. I think we shouldn't be mealy-mouthed talking about IOU in the Mediterranean. I think it's an appropriation of our marine resources by a mafia of the seas.
So we do have to strengthen Mediterranean surveillance. We need to put pressure on the countries concerned. What's the point of having Europe if it can't throw all of its weight behind this to demand that people assume responsibilities and insist on traceability of products? And why not weaken the black market by lightening the heavy burden of standards on our fissures, so that their products can be more competitive? Once again, there's a double standard approach being followed by the EU.
It's weak on people outside the EU and is imposing a heavy burden on the weaker side, are small fishes when nothing serious is being done against these pirates.
Thank.
Eric Sargiacomo
Thank you very much, mister Sacha Comeau. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the commission as well for the presentation and all of the work they're doing in terms of monitoring and control. But of course, the Mediterranean faces many challenges: climate change, pollution, increase in marine temperatures, invasion of certain species, decline in others, overfishing. We all remember the recent FAO figures, 28% of the stocks are overfished. That's a slight improvement on previous figures, where it was at 73%, but much of this is due to illegal fisheries.
So how can we remain credible vis-à-vis our own small scale fishers who we are asking to make heavy sacrifices when we allow onto our markets illegal catch? The figures generated by fisheries and aquaculture is €20,000,000,000. A certain share of that €20,000,000,000 goes to illegal fisheries and end up on our plates. So I would ask the commission to strengthen its efforts and to be intransigent when it comes to imports. When will we have a genuine certification that can guarantee us that our imports respect the standards that we often impose upon our own fish? And how can we be sure that the fish that we eat doesn't come from illegal fishing?
And you're in Germany.
Sebastian Everding
Mediterranean has especially rich biodiversity, 17,000 different species, and almost 30% of them only exist in the Mediterranean. And 70.57% of these stocks are overfished, and these often end up as either illegal or bycatch. So I think I have a question for the commission, and this is the very current and tragic case of this fish which is found near the German coast. And we're talking about how this could be prevented by the use of electronic monitoring. Do you agree that in the Mediterranean as well as in the Baltic and the North Sea, this use of REM would be a better way of reporting death of whales and dolphins?
So my question is, how can the EU in all the different areas be better at having a stronger, play a stronger role to prevent such tragedies as having this kind of cetacean death? So we have to do much more in order to support endangered animals. Thank you.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Dear colleagues, combating cross-border illegal fishing in the Mediterranean is a matter of sovereignty, security, but also survival of our coastal communities. It's not just a matter pertaining to fisheries policy, as was mentioned by my excellent colleague, Tomix Balliatas, on the problem that exists in Malta and Sicily. We also have a big problem in the Aegean. The situation is very bad. We have a lot of illegal fishing activities, Turkey in the case of Greece.
And this is not just an incident that happens once in a while. It's a systematic phenomenon that puts our test to the limit, in any case. And here, I'd like to talk about something very specific. A couple of months ago, in the context of the twenty-sixth budget opinion, the commission quite rightly said that Greece, Cyprus, Sicily and Malta belong to high-risk areas, high risk against illegal fishing. This was an important step forward.
This was a political commitment. But now we need to ask clearly what has happened exactly since then. Have the control mechanisms been activated in the Eastern Mediterranean? Is there information on the operational presence of the EFCA in the area? Have funds been made available for the support of local fishermen?
Because if these decisions remain at the level of the text and at the level of announcements, then the message we send is that Europe sees but doesn't intervene. And this is not something that we can allow in any case. The Eastern Mediterranean cannot be a gray zone when it comes to implementing EU policy. We need to take action. We need to be present.
We need to be efficient and effective. Thank you very much.
Belarus.
Fredis Beleris
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, IUU in Greece and Cyprus is something that our fishermen deal with every day. This is a problem that destroys the biodiversity of the marine environment, the economy of insular areas, and also the safety at sea. In the last few years, in the area of the Eastern Mediterranean up to Malta, we see many Turkish violations. We have a lot of illegal fishing gear being used by the Turks. And this is against international law, but it also undermines the efforts made to conserve fishing stocks.
It creates unfair competition for the illegal EU fishermen. The EU has tools in place. It has instruments to deal with IUU, but that is not enough in itself. We see that those violating the law come up with new ideas, so we need to make use of modern technology. We have to make sure that everything is done in the right way.
The protection of our seas is not just an environmental obligation. It's a matter of EU sovereignty. It's not possible to have restrictions for EU fishermen and to have third countries flagrantly violating the law. We have organized crime, and this is something very bad. So an end must be put to that situation.
Thank you very much.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
The next speaker is Ms. Mikhailova for five minutes in order to answer the questions of the members. Please go ahead.
Milena Mihailova
Thank you very much. So I have taken note of the honorable member, missus Zofko's intervention concerning Velagruzia. And, indeed, we are aware of some allegations of recreational vessel fishing in shore with nets, and we are looking into that. I believe there is a correspondence between the commission and the honorable MEP on this. Concerning the honorable MEP, mister Bahara, to reply to your question, the European Commission did send another letter to Tunisia on 26 January, raising all current issues and offering a bilateral meeting.
To this end, a mission to Tunis is in the making for our director general next week. So we hope to be able to raise at the highest levels, not just follow-up on the inspection schemes, but all pending issues, fisheries management issues that we have with Tunisia. Concerning additional means for control, the commission is committed to reinforcing the control of fisheries within the Mediterranean joint steering group, and encourages member states to deploy also assets at sea to support the specific campaigns in the Central Mediterranean. Concerning the link between trade and legal imports, fisheries imports. This is exactly what we're working towards, and this is why I had mentioned the new compliance schemes in the GFCM.
So they will provide us with all the necessary information and evidence to have a clear state of play as regards Mediterranean countries' implementation and enforcement of relevant for trade fisheries rules. So where the European Commission has proven information that there is no compliance, it will provide this information to the member states' authorities to be taken into account when consignments from these particular countries are coming in. So indeed, we're using regional cooperation and regional rules and information in order to use the IUU regulation. For now, as I mentioned, we are looking at this enhanced monitoring tool, which provides the member states or alerts member states of the necessity to give more attention to consignments coming in from specific countries in order to ask relevant questions with regards to how is this compliant with, in this context, GFCM rules. And on that basis, we will accelerate the use of the IEU regulation in the region.
Concerning, I think I'm sorry. I did not understand the question on the use of REM. Maybe we can discuss this further bilaterally. And just concerning the last two interventions, as regards Turkey, the commission remains committed to respecting and protecting the sovereign rights of the EU member states. It consistently emphasizes a zero-tolerance approach towards IUU fishing.
Moreover, the commission encourages Turkey to ratify the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, as doing so would provide clear legal parameters and help reduce tensions in the eastern age. In support of member states' enforcement, the commission leverages surveillance tools and EU funds under MFAV to bolster monitoring efforts. While the primary responsibility for the control of fishing activities in member states falls within national authorities, the European Fisheries Control Agency coordinates member states' fisheries inspection activities in the Mediterranean through a dedicated joint deployment plan, as I mentioned, and a dedicated EFCA vessel. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Well, thank you very much, Mrs. Mahalova, for your contribution to this debate. I don't know if there'll be any follow-up, any questions. If not, let's move on. Here we'll have an exchange of view of the commission representative with the implementation numbered 1,100 of 2007 on Eels and the current start of play on Eels.
I'll give the floor to the commission representative, Ms. Dovi Balikaze Kauri, and who is the joint head of D. G. Maurer. And then we'll give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr.
Wissen, on this point. Then we'll get a chance to discuss this, subsequently. So Madame Balowski, Caite, ten minutes.
Dovi Balikaze Kauri
Thank you, Madame Chair, and my apologies for my complicated last name. Just like in the morning, I would like to share the regrets of our director, Stilianos Mitulis, who couldn't be here, unfortunately, and he asked me to step in to do the commission representation on the topic of eels. And first of all, I would like to thank you, for putting this important topic on the committee's agenda because the situation for European eel continues to be dire as it is threatened by extinction as confirmed by the science. We are not seeing signs of a eel recovery. What science continues to tell us is that there should be zero eel catches in all habitats, that the nonfisheries mortalities should be reduced to zero, and that the eel habitats should be improved and restored.
Speaker 25
The recovery of the European eel stock requires a comprehensive package of measures, a holistic approach, not only by the EU, but also by the member states, and also with third countries that are effectively implemented on the ground. This must be done in a coordinated way, in a holistic and science-based way. Member states currently are taking various measures through their yield management plans under the yield regulation that you mentioned at the beginning. What these plans set is that the member states have measures to address reducing yield mortalities in fisheries and hydropower, restocking, trap, and transport. Member states also take measures through other legal instruments, not only under the EEL regulation, which is required by the need for a holistic approach.
And these measures come under the, for example, fishing opportunities regulation, the Water Framework Directive, the wildlife trade regulation. Member states do not allow trade from and to the EU, whereas marketing in the EU is allowed. Some member states also take more stringent measures by listing the European eel as strictly protected or prohibiting eel fishing all year. The commission continues monitoring the implementation by the member states of their eel management plans under the eel regulation. We also continue monitoring the fishing closures under the fisheries opportunities regulation and relevant environmental legislation, benefiting eel recovery and its sustainable use in the future.
Speaker 26
Most recent, ICE's advice on the eel management plan progress of the member states, which came out just a year ago in April 2024, shows that the member states' progress in reducing eel mortality by fisheries and environmental measures is variable and remains uneven, and that the key targets have not been achieved. What we see is that fishing closures alone might not always be effective. Member states must adopt a holistic approach to better implement the eel regulation and eel fishing closures to address all causes of mortalities under fisheries and environmental avenues. They have to improve control and traceability of eels along the value chain, as well as to combat illegal fishing and trafficking of eels to Asian markets. The commission has been continuously calling on member states to step up conservation efforts and consistently proposing stronger action for the recovery of European eel.
Speaker 25
We continue encouraging member states to review their existing eel management strategies contained in their eel management plans and beyond, on the basis of our recommendations and the best available scientific advice. The nature restoration law will give a further boost to addressing biodiversity loss and eel in particular. In particular, restoring river continuity and improving habitats for eels is key in planning additional measures and reinforcing existing actions. So nature restoration plans for member states are another opportunity to address the issue. When looking at the whole geographical range of European Eel, the EU and member states must continue working with third countries, including under the RFMOs, the Regional Seas Convention, the CMS, the CITES, to coordinate our efforts adapted to the regional circumstances.
When it comes to the fight against wildlife trafficking, European eel is the main EU priority, with significant coordinated enforcement efforts targeting illegal trade in this species. Moving forward and rebuilding the European eel stock is not without challenges, and this requires ambition and close collaboration between different administrations and stakeholders at the international, EU, national, regional and local level. In the commission, DG Mare works very closely mainly with DG environment to help address the various challenges considering the future of eel conservation and management in the broader context of all relevant EU policies. Under the Marine Action Plan, we organized in 2024 two technical workshops. One on Eels providing for the unique forum to exchange on good practices in helping Eels migrate to the open sea, and second, on the financing opportunities for implementing the marine action plan.
EU funds, including MFAV, can support innovative projects that contribute to the sustainable use and management of aquatic resources and for wider biodiversity activities benefiting eels, such as restoring natural habitats. Future MFF would also play a role as the member states could support measures provided in their national nature restoration plans, which for the time being, are a part of the policy reference framework as referred to in article 22 of NRP regulation. So to conclude, European eel is in a difficult situation, but it remains clear that managing fisheries alone will not be enough. Higher and holistic engagement with member states will be crucial in view of strengthening the conservation efforts on the ground. Thank you, madam chair.
Thank.
you. Mr. Riesen?
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you to the commission for the explanation of the state of play with regard to the implementation of the EEL regulation. Some time ago, as parliament, we adopted an initiative report about EELs and the EEL regulation. And as parliament, we noted that the EEL regulation is an important instrument for the management of the EEL. But the regulation could be better implemented. And one of our recommendations concerned the governance and the coordination, the important coordinating role the Commission had to play.
And I have to say, quite honestly, I still have concerns about this because when I look at what is going on surrounding the management of eel, the focus has very much been on limiting fishing opportunities through the annual establishment of catch opportunities. That's what the focus has been on. But in my view, there's been too little attention to the management of national management plans, oversight of these, and coordination between them. One of our recommendations was about having a special ILL advisory group. And my question to the commission is, what has happened to that recommendation?
Has this Eel advisory group gotten off the ground? And I'd also like to know what the current state of the individual national management plans is. Are they constantly updated by the member states? I have the impression that quite a number of member states are still using old management plans and that there's a need for updating. So perhaps the commission has an opinion on that.
I'm interested to see that the fight against illegal trafficking in glass eels is continuing. That's, of course, very important. It's important to see that successes have been achieved through enforcement authorities. But I would appeal for more attention to be given to the socio-economic aspects of eel fisheries. A lot of attention is being paid to the management of the stocks, but we also need to keep an eye on the socioeconomic importance of this sector.
I think more attention could be given to that. Thank you.
Well,
Isabella Lövin
Thank you very much to the commission, and thank you, colleague Ruizen, for bringing this important issue up. Today, we already discussed the extremely severe status of the Baltic Porpoise, which is near extinction. But the European Eel is a common responsibility for all EU member states and even some states outside of the European Union since it's the same habitat for this single species, which is extremely mysterious and quite, I would say, charismatic if you get to know its whole life cycle, how it spawns and reproduces in the Sargasso Sea, and then comes into Europe, but also goes up into freshwater and then returns. So it's a common responsibility for all of us. And I remember very well when the first yield management plan was adopted in 2007.
It's 19 years ago. So it makes me quite worried to see the latest ISIS evaluation showing that we're not going in, yes, we're not turning the trend after all these years. And also that some members' days are using, for instance, artificial stocking as a primary measure when we know that yes, it has to be done very delicately. And in fact, it's not sure that it will contribute to the stock or its stock survival, but it could even be detrimental because you artificially keep some fishing going, although then you've also fished for the natural yields that are still there. In Sweden, there has also been restocking in water in rivers above hydropower plants.
So they will never be able to go down through these hydropower plants. So, okay. So my question is similar to colleague Riesen. What is the status of Member States' updates of the national yield management plans? How many have been updated and following the commission's request on this?
And I also think it's really worrying that the evaluation shows the absolutely uneven way of applying the management plans in the different member states. And commission, you mentioned that some member states prohibit eel fishing even altogether. In my member state, eel fishing the six months of provision is really very much targeted towards the wintertime when there's no fishing going on anyway. So that shows that some members don't take this really seriously. So how could we make member states take it seriously and really have a holistic approach, both knowing and targeting illegal fishing, unsustainable fishing.
And I mean, ISIS is very clear, all fishing is unsustainable because it is really threatened. And lastly, also on the illegal trade of eels, which is the biggest crime of exporting threatened species that we have now in the European Union. What are we doing about it? Thank you.
Well,
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, you said indeed, and what the commission said, the European ELO is a problem, is facing tough times, but it's not the fishermen that are creating this pressure on the stock. And you have recommended a holistic and necessary impact at this point. In France, our plans could affect about 100 ships without having an economic impact of poor assessment conducted. So taking decisions of this scope without actually taking a look at what's going to happen to the value chain is problematic.
Will the commission do that? Will you have an overview of the sector? And then you've got capture at the output. There's been a suggestion here in '28, but this is not something that's being studied anymore by the GFCM groups. And we see that these come out of the Mediterranean, where we do find that there's less recruitment.
The area that's the weakest then is the Bay of Biscay. I wonder if you'll look at those models, they're commissioned for specific requests. First of all, a pragmatic evaluation in compliance with the regulation. Second, number two, an eco systemic approach which is realistic, which looks at the polluter pays principle. Here, I'm thinking about those who would block the migratory corridors.
That does happen. And then an evaluation of the economic impact. You look at it, sometimes we spend four or five times more on the dissemination than we do on repopulation. There is a possibility that we could increase the availability without putting more pressure on the resource. Then finally, flexibility on the fishing seasons.
We mentioned that closures in Sweden also happen in France. It's kind of like this lottery, in fact. And this year, rainfall was unfavorable at the start of the year, and that meant that you couldn't get fishermen couldn't catch their fish during that quota period. People are just kind of standing on the heads. And we're trying to work with the commission.
But if you look at those who actually live based on their earnings from the sea and you actually collect the data, then you can develop plans. Sometimes things are a bit detached from reality. But if you look closely, what's actually transpiring, you'll have better plans.
Asger Christensen
Sorry, maybe I haven't come too late for the last agenda, but I'll try to explain what I said about illegal fishing. I hope that is the agenda. No, it's we all are sorry. I speak Danish. Sorry.
It's been a busy day.
Asger Christensen
Today, many fishers experience that there's actually a lot of eel in different places. And for that reason, there's no reason that this fishery should be affected so long by these long closure periods, especially because the problem is somewhere else, and that's the problem we have to solve. It's a much bigger challenge. We have, for example, comrade who eat up to 60% of eel. We have Danish research on this.
And so that's the kind of action we need to take. At the same time, we have a huge problem with illegal trade in glass eels. And that's like trafficking of drugs. It's something we have to solve because these glass eels never end up in European waters later on. So we have to look at those two areas: illegal trade in glass eel and cormorants.
They really have the largest fishing quota on our eels. Sorry for the confusion earlier.
Francisco José Millán Mon
Madam Chair, well, the yield, which is an important question in Europe, and trying to have the stocks recover. Well, you've got to base all this on scientific data and socioeconomic realities. And one thing that comes to my mind would be that the member states develop plans for stock management. This has to be the key for the recovery of the species in Europe, getting the proper measures, looking at each basin, and working with the other environmental measures too, not just restrictions, but ones that actually look at other aspects. Now we've seen some places where this has worked.
If you look at Galicia, eel fishing has been sustainable with very strict controls ensuring that. There's also been pipes when you have closed seasons, measuring of catches. It shows that you can conserve the species with an economic activity continuing. This is not a marginal fishery. It does contribute to the prosperity of certain fishing communities.
So we've really got to think about this not just from an environmental point of view, but also you have to look at the socio-economic aspects. I'm from Galicia. We know how important the Ile is in our region. It certainly is something that we've shown that it can be managed. My region shows that.
The total fishing of eels in Spain, for example, which is under the Ministry of the Environment. I think they're just banning this as going too far. It won't solve the underlying problem again without any consideration of how it's going to affect the economies. And most of the autonomous regions in Spain have opposed this proposal to foreclosure. And I'd say that if you look at the 2020 evaluation from the Commission on Recovery of the Stocks, well, this is something that would take decades given the slow time it takes for the reproduction.
But I think the device coming up in 2020 is still. It doesn't just involve reducing fishing effort here. It's what the commission said before. They're not just fishery measures here. There are other things too that are not related to fishing.
You've got to have a holistic approach. Well, if you look at the ICs 2025 report, which was referred to, that also mentioned other criteria that need to be practically evaluated. I'll conclude by making a reference to ourselves back to what we said in the parliament in November 2023. We've got to have this holistic approach when we don't have the proper scientific data. Well, we've got to tread carefully on our measures.
So I don't think we should ban the fissures. We've got to make sure that the management bodies are working properly, monitoring is good, and they continue to work well. And I'm looking forward to hearing what the European Commission has to say in reply to the questions which have been voiced here. Yes. Thank you very much to the chair.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
May I thank you, mister Miemon, for I know you are suffering with a bit of a cold, so it's good for you to be here and do your best to speak. Nonetheless, get your message across. The
Sebastian Everding
European Union since 2008 has been threatened by extinction. It's about to celebrate a very tragic twentieth year anniversary. Zero catch. That's the only precautionary principle-based suggestion, and yet we see no consistent protection. Instead of action, we see these strong words on the paper, but that it's all watered down with exceptions, or delays, or national rules.
Six month closure, that only helps if that actually covers the main transport period of the eels. And so there's no convincing action taken for the habitat, so there's no convincing recovery. So we have to, it's going to get worse. If you look at the news, even Europol is now investigating an eel mafia. So the question to the commission: why aren't you following consistently the scientific advice?
Why are you watering it down so much? And when are you going to draw the conclusions that this is a conflict between the scientific advice and the actual practice in the eel sector. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Yes. Thank you. Now I'll be speaking as an MEP, and I would like to say that much like mister Rissin and mister Emilio Ramon and Karinnek, who have spoken in this committee, I think that we need to change our approach. Some things have worked. The big problem is certainly complying with what currently exists. The measures which were adopted by Member States need to be applied.
Now, in addition to this, I think we need to be very diligent when it comes to combating IUU here, and particularly in the rivers. We've got to see also very carefully how the management plans are working, whether or not they are being complied with. I mean, the sector should really be an ally for conservation. That's what we tried to do in the past regulations. Then what we have agreed needs to be complied with.
The sector needs to be an active member. We need to protect this resource. They're the ones who are most concerned with sustainability. Anything we do needs to be adopted in that line. So the way I see things here in Europe is we've really got to have balanced management.
We've got to, though, again implement what we've already agreed. It's got to be implemented in our country. It's not to prohibit more, but just to manage better. And we've got to have better coordination between member states. I think this is something which has not really become a reality.
We've got to fine-tune the regulation, but again, make sure that we're very realistic in our approach. As scientists are saying, what we've said, some of the members of this committee have said that the scientists have mentioned that it's the management plans that need to be complied with in the member states and regions. I'll give the floor, if you will, at this point in time to the co-head of the GMR so that we can conclude on this point. Please go ahead.
Dovi Balikaze Kauri
Thank you, Madam Chair. To start maybe first with referring to the question by honorable member Raisen about the follow-up to the resolution and especially the question about the special advisory group on yields. What we are doing is we're using actually the marine special group that was created under the marine action plan adopted in 2023. And this marine special group meets twice a year, and it is unique in that it's bringing together the ministries of the member states of environment and fisheries, and they discuss a number of topics, including eels. And, actually, the next meeting that we will have will be on June 30.
Speaker 25
And so this would be, I would say, our reaction to mister Rauson's question. Now on the socioeconomic importance of the sector and if this is taken into account, I think this is the question that can be applied to fisheries in general when we talk about the triple sustainability that comes from the CFP regulation, and eel fishery, of course, is no different. Social sustainability is one of the three objectives, but we can all agree that if there is no environmental sustainability, the stock is in dire state, there's not so much of social sustainability we can talk about. So we need to prioritize all three elements. However, having said that, the commission is working very intensely to develop the social indicators together with STCF, and we are already seeing some promising results.
So I would say that in another year or so, we will have stronger social national profiles that would also help us for the whole fisheries, not only for the eels, to know better about the social impacts in general. And now lastly, on this point, also just to highlight what I said in my intervention is that we do have the current fisheries fund, MFAV, under which financial support for temporary and permanent cessation is available, and that would also cover the yields. So there is monetary support for affected fishermen. Now to answer the question of several honorable members about the E and P plans updates, indeed, the Marine Action Plan asked, actually mandated the member states to update their plans. We have received three updated plans until now, which come from Poland, Lithuania, and Czechia, and we have eight other member states who have informed us that they are working on the revised plans.
So this is the information on the state of the plans. Now, important question on the consistency of closures. Indeed, it is very important to make sure that they happen at the time when they make the most impact, and that they are consistent across the member states. And on this, the commission is in very close contact with the member states and is observing very closely how the member states implement their closures that are mandated under the fishing opportunities regulation, and we will continue this close monitoring of the consistency. Now on the illegal trade.
Indeed, there must be actions taken under CITES. Here, just to remind that you had proposed some time ago to upgrade EEL in the appendix one, which would not allow trade. However, this was not supported, and that ended with a resolution on EELs. So this is an important development. Then, of course, enforcement by Europol and the member states authorities and EFCA are very important in tackling illegal trade, as well as custom authorities.
And lastly, on the illegal trade, we do see that with the revised control regulation and the better traceability rules, it would have a positive impact as well on the eel trade. Now on the cormorants, we do acknowledge the issue. And as I did say at my intervention, capture fisheries are not the only pressure on the eel. It's a holistic problem with different elements at stake. So, of course, the predators is one of them as well.
There was a guidance adopted on managing conflicts between fisheries and cormorants, which are a protected species. It has been developed, and it was adopted as part of the guidance on Natura 2000. And my last reply was sorry. I didn't note, sorry. It was honorable member Everding why the commission is watering down the scientific advice.
Sorry. Not watering, but watering down the scientific advice. I would like to remind that in 2017, the commission did table a proposal proposing to close eel fisheries. However, the council had decided to go with the periodic closures instead. So as we know, the fishing opportunities are the prerogative of the member states, but the commission can make a proposal, which it did.
And I did, I hope I covered all the questions. Thank you.
Señor Rissen?
Thank.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
you. Thank you, madam chair. I think it was very useful to have this exchange today in the fisheries committee. I think it shows parliament is closely following the implementation of this regulation, that we are keeping a close eye on what the commission is doing as well. And I completely agree with colleagues who said we need a holistic approach to achieve a good level of yield stocks, not just looking at fisheries, but looking at other issues affecting the health of the stocks.
On governance, when I look at the management plans that are being updated, the commission says that three member states have updated their plans, and eight are working on them. Well, when I hear that, I really want to urge all the other member states to get going on updating their management plans because I think that's work to be done, to say the least. I think we need to keep an eye on this in Parliament. We have to keep pressing member states to see how they are working on their management plans and implementing them. And this has to be a regular agenda point for us on our committee, so that we can keep up the pressure.
Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Yes. Thank you very much indeed. We'll do just that. And then I deem this point concluded. Now we'll move on to the exchange of views with the commission representative, on a new generation of sustainable fisheries partnership agreements.
Here, I'd like to welcome the Commission representative, Mr. Fernando Andresen Guimaras, who is the Director of DG MARE. I'll give you the floor ten minutes, sir, to explain this very important point, which will be key to European waters and beyond Europe.
Fernando Andresen Guimarães
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, honorable members of the Parliament. In the autumn, we will be in the commission presenting an important package of policy orientations for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors consisting of a Vision 2040, which will outline the long term perspective for the sector as well as a road map for its energy transition. And it will include an external dimension, a dedicated external dimension, a strategy on fisheries external action, which will define, among other key elements, the framework for this new generation you mentioned of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership agreements. Now we are working and have been working for some time to ensure that this work is grounded in solid evidence, and this rests on two main pillars. The first is a very careful evaluation of the past, starting, of course, with the common fisheries policy regulation at its heart.
The commission will publish its evaluation report in the coming weeks. And importantly, just to underline that the assessment will include the external dimension of the CFP, which will be relevant to what we are talking about today, and will directly inform our future strategy for external action for this package in the autumn. The second very important pillar is, of course, stakeholder engagement. We've had extensive calls for evidence and public consultations. A wealth of valuable insights have been gathered, and we continue to gather them, including, we hope, here today as well.
And last week, we had a very productive and fruitful conference organized by the long-distance advisory council on the new generation, in which some of the honorable members participated. We are now seized with the task of preparing this strategy and the new generation. But in the meantime, I should underline, before I begin, that we have not stood still. We do continue to work, of course, to ensure the continuity of the partnerships that are there today. And new implementation protocols last year were signed and provisionally applied for SFPAs with Ivory Coast, Sao Tome and Principe and the Cook Islands.
And we have just this year, very recently, successfully concluded negotiations on a new protocol with the Seychelles. Negotiations are ongoing with Mauritania. They're about to begin with Mauritius, and should be followed shortly by Morocco. And later in the autumn, we will launch negotiations with Madagascar. So a very full program is ongoing already.
And these current negotiations, of course, have in mind the future generation, but this is the trick which we have to find a way through. As outlined in the mission letter of Commissioner Kadas and in line with the objectives of the European Ocean Pact, the new generation of SFPAs must be aligned with the European Union's broader regional strategies and priorities. We share the starting point that SFPAs are a very valuable and important instrument. They promote high environmental and social standards. They support the development of a sustainable fishery sector in our partner countries.
They provide a stable long-term framework for the activity of the long-distance fleet, and they place the EU on the map, promoting its values, promoting its interests. At the same time, we agree that this key instrument can and should be improved. Overall,
Fernando Andresen Guimarães
Want to strengthen fairness and transparency, ensure that the network is coherent, complementary, and effective at both the regional and the global level. So let me say with this opening, perhaps just a few words on a few key issues that will be tackled in the new generation. First, we want to strengthen policy coherence further. SFPAs are at the heart of bilateral relationships with these partner countries. And as part of our ongoing ocean diplomacy, we are already seeking to make the most of the possibilities that exist to maximize synergies, to include issues that are of relevance on the other external fisheries issues such as the RFMO coordination, BB and J, fight against IU fishing.
We are including these already in the agendas of joint committee meetings, and we want to explore further what we can do to ensure greater policy coherence at the level of our partners with our fisheries, external action, and ocean governance. But additionally, there needs to be more coherence between SFPAs and development policy. We're already putting this into practice, further coordinating policy aims that are in our domain with those that are in the domain of development policy in our engagement with these partners. We're aligning our interventions in SFPA partner countries, making sure that services here at headquarters level and on the ground through the EU delegations are coherent. At the same time, we need to be realistic about what role SFPAs play in this mix.
Where we do have SFPAs, they are only part of the toolbox that can be used, but they must be used coherently with development, trade, and environmental policies to promote economic, social, and environmental sustainability. They cannot alone give the answer, but as part of a broader policy mix, we will strive to make these more coherent and more effective. An important dimension of this will be the reinforcement, the improvement of local stakeholder consultation processes, making sure that these are more inclusive and more transparent. That's the first issue. The second key issue for our thinking is strengthening non-discrimination and transparency clauses, as well as their implementation by partner countries.
We push already for partner countries to deliver on these clauses. They are a standard item, of course, at the joint committee meetings. We must be aware of the challenges in this area, but we will continue to explore the practicalities, the legal aspects of publishing reports from the joint committee meetings, which will provide an additional level of transparency. Furthermore, we are already underway in terms of the collection of data on the beneficial ownership of EU vessels by partner countries. This is already a reality in our new protocols, and it is our aim to make this a standard clause in all future SFPAs.
That would also be aimed at, and this is important to underline, at third country fleets equally. Third, this question of the regional approach to SFPAs. We want to explore further how to have a greater impact through harmonization of access conditions among protocols in the same region, but also by bringing together SFPA partners, neighboring SFPA partners, to discuss together issues that are of regional interest such as the sustainability of fish stocks, data collection, or complementarity with regional management organizations. For example, a key issue of shared concern is fish meal production. And as we have stated many times, the EU fleet does not feed fish meal factories.
And now with engagement, we are encouraged that some of our SFPA partners are moving in this direction and taking the necessary measures to either ban or reduce fishmeal production, for example, Nguyen, Ibisao, and Mauritania. And we want to work even more closely with them and other like-minded countries to reinforce the sustainability within CCAPF, the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic. Mauritania already has and is implementing a successful plan of action for pelagics, and this will reinforce the kind of stronger regional coordination we would be after in a new generation. I'm aware of the time. I know that you gave me ten minutes and I don't, but I will just say a couple more points of interest, I think, to the members with regard to the points that we want to look at in the new SFPAs.
Key tools for effective control and compliance for sustainable fisheries. So we have, of course, the electronic recording and reporting system, the vessel monitoring systems. This is how we ensure effective control. Communication. This is the fifth point tackling the negative perceptions of SFPAs in the partner countries.
This is an area for all of us. More effective communication is necessary. The financial structure of SFPAs has to be matching the Court of Auditors' recommendations at least, and of course ensuring value for taxpayer money. You will see increasingly agreements that are better aligned with the utilization rate. And last but not least, is ensuring a level playing field, promoting fair and transparent conditions for EU operators.
These are all of the key aims for our new generation, but they are not it's not an exclusive list. It's a challenging work ahead, but we very much rely on the support that we feel is in this room. So, and above all, we look forward to hearing your suggestions and questions for improvement. Thank you very much.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you very much. Well, we'll have a further opportunity to hear from you later. But now we'll take a round of speakers, and I'll begin with Mr. Main Bonn, on behalf of the EPP. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Mr.
Francisco José Millán Mon
Kimura is for his comprehensive presentation. And I agree over the large part of what he said. I had the opportunity to meet him at one of the events that he referred to that took place in the Economic and Social Committee of the EU, as well as the long distance advisory committee, where we heard from experts and from ship owners whose ships go to these countries and benefit from these agreements. I want to bore you who are also present at this conference, Ms. Leuven, I know, and Ms.
Yacomo and so on. So I won't give the whole presentation I gave last week. There are a few highlights I want to emphasize. These agreements are broadly successful. We should maintain them for the near future.
The commission is thinking about ways of improving them. Of course, everything can be improved, but they're beneficial for the fleet. They project standards and benchmarks in third countries and in ocean governance, and they are also good for the third countries that benefit from them. So I think they're good for ocean governance, the projection of our principles. Of course, there are challenges, one of them being ensuring predictability and continuity.
We don't want people sort of pending the outcome of uncertain negotiations leading to rich periods and then lean periods while new agreements are being renegotiated. That's the problem we have with these dormant agreements, and also problems of mismatches between potential and effective catch. We have to be very careful with what is known as the technical features, where we define areas and impose certain technical rules, which make it impossible to fish the species that you want to fish because certain fishing grounds are ruled out, and there's a mismatch between what you've paid for and what you would actually get out of the agreement. So sometimes, as I say, there are these mismatches and we have to pay close attention to them and make sure that when agreements are developed, there shouldn't be these technical amendments that make fishing inviolable. And then there's the question of unfair competition from third-country fleets.
Very often, you know, the Chinese, the Turkish, the Japanese fleets are not complying with the same standards as we are, and they are increasing their catch or fishing closer to the coast. We're forced to go further out, where there is less stock. So they are skimming off all the fish in front of our noses. We are much more regulated. We are projecting our values and applying them.
And so we need to be careful about that. I was in the Shay Shells two weeks ago, and I was able to see how well the European fleet was behaving there. And I could also see the prosperity of our fleet and our landings, our tin can plants there and so on, also to the benefit of the Seychelles. So that is clearly a win-win situation in The Seychelles. And I want these win-win situations to prevail and to be imitated in other countries.
I think we should multiply agreements, and resolve the remaining difficulties. That's what I wanted to.
say. Thank.
You, Mister Sergio Pomo.
Eric Sargiacomo
Madam Chair. It is true that we did have this opportunity to talk about these issues in the Economic and Social Committee. Fruitful discussions were had about the fate of this new generation of sustainable fisheries agreements. They are historic. They are vital for European fisheries, but they're getting more difficult to renew.
And also, we have the so-called dormant agreements which are not in application. When the sustainable fisheries agreement with Guinea Bissau was approved, parliament adopted almost unanimously a report where we said that these agreements could be made more acceptable for the local population. You said you work with stakeholders, but among the stakeholders you have to consider are local communities and, first and foremost, local fishers in the governance of these agreements. The representation of small scale fishers and women's communities as well is very important, because it's often women who are working in the processing and sale of these products. We are concerned as well about hygiene and processing, both on land and at sea, by people who are often working as seafarers in our fleet.
We want as well to generate prosperity for the local economy and success stories like the one in Seychelles about how the products are landed and processed on the spot, so that people can live from their activity. It indeed has to be a win-win situation for all concerned. We must fight against IUU fishing, and obviously not just exotic fleet IUU, but also certain vessels that change flag, give up the European flag to fly another flag in order to have fewer impediments. And of course, social standards for the local population. We need to find resources to pay for nursery care or schooling for the children of the people who are working in the ports and at sea and processing these products. Facilities, planting facilities, and hygiene conditions for the processing and export efficient need to be guaranteed.
So I think there are a lot of expectations in this new generation. Also, social conditions on board vessels must not be forgotten. And I think we need a negotiated collective agreement between the commission and ship owners and crews to be included in the sustainable fisheries agreements as well, in terms of working conditions on board. So please bear in mind what a large majority of parliament adopted in terms of recommendations when it came to the agreement with Guinea-Bissau. Thank you.
Ton Diepeveen
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the commission for that presentation. I have been a rapporteur in the past for the SFPA between the EU and Côte d'Ivoire. In February, I took the initiative of going to see what the effects of the agreement were on the spot, in practice, looking at the local communities in Cote D'Ivoire and also for our own population. And when I look at Côte d'Ivoire, we've got €740,000 from Europe to be able to catch 160,000 tons of tuna. And when I was there, it seemed that of the 50 odd licenses available, very few were actually being used.
And of the money made available, a lot went to infrastructure. But what we saw on the spot was that the licenses aren't being fully exploited even by our own fishing vessels. That was really striking. We just heard about the situation in the Seychelles, but European vessels are going from Ivory Coast to Seychelles. One of the reasons is that certain things are more expensive in Ivory Coast than elsewhere, but also tuna catch has been falling off in the Ivory Coast, all sorts of other conditions as well of the canning industry.
There's only one left at the three processing plants. We also see many women work in the canning industry. An Italian company recently closed, with 1,000 jobs being lost in Ivory Coast. So when it comes to control of IUU fishing, I will pass on a report to the commission. I've already reported back to or sent a copy to members of the Fisheries Committee.
But anyway, it seems that there is supervision in place, but there aren't enough people with enough resources to really maintain monitoring and control. So we do need to consider with these agreements that we don't just ensure that there are good things on paper, but we have to see what is being done on the spot with our money, and what impact it has on the spot. So, to be honest, we were quite shocked at what we found from our trip. And of course, there is gratitude towards the EU for these kinds of agreements, but I think we have a duty of care. We have to ensure that our taxpayers' money is actually fully spent.
It does indeed bear fruit. I'll leave it at that, but it was a very educational experience. And as far as I'm concerned, it gives me the message that the commission shouldn't just look in advance of the signature at what's in place, but also what comes out of it afterwards, and also keep a close eye on where tweaks and adjustments need to be made. So I'll be sharing my findings with the commission. Thank you, Mr.
Raison.
Thank.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
You, Madam Chair. It's a good thing that the commission is looking at the SFPAs from a fisheries point of view, because they are important for our fishing fleet, and they should benefit both our fleet and that of the partner country. There are certain points I have to pass on to the commission. First, I appeal to take into account the food security and strategic economy of the European fleet. This should be specifically included in Article 28 of the Common Fisheries Policy on the external fisheries policy.
So if we are going to review this, we should look at Article 28, and ensure that these specific objectives are included. And secondly, when we talk about the payments that we make under SFPAs, we have to realize these are not subsidies. So they shouldn't fall under the WTO framework. They're not subsidies, so we need to be careful that they're not treated as such. Thirdly, we need to ensure that the EU doesn't lag behind the conditions that other countries enjoy.
I think we should fight for the best possible conditions for our own fishing fleets, and we shouldn't accept worse conditions than other countries. Fourthly, inactive or dormant SFPAs need to be looked at seriously to ensure that we can use scarce resources better. And finally, when it comes to negotiating new or extending SFPAs, take our fishers' interest into account and ensure that long periods do not arise between the ending of one protocol and the beginning of a new one, so that there isn't this kind of fallow period for our fishers and ensure good controls. And collection of data, this will ensure that we can make good progress with our SFPA. Sorry.
Mrs. Sullivan.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the commission for coming here and presenting the ideas about the new generation of SFPAs. I was here in the parliament back in 2012, and I was the rapporteur of the reform of the external dimension of the common fisheries policy back then. So we did a couple of, I think, really important improvements of what was formerly called fisheries partnerships agreements, and we added the S. So it was the sustainable Fisheries Partnership agreement.
But one important thing was to make sure we separated the access fees and the sectoral support, not to mix those two because if you mix it and you just say, here, you have this envelope of money, give us access to your fish, it was very intransparent, and it was not in line with the principles we have with development cooperation. So I think it's extremely important that we remember that most of the countries with which we have Fisheries Partnership agreements are developing countries. And when we talk about food security, we must not forget the food security of the countries, our partner countries, so that we don't compete with local fishermen, we don't take away job opportunities that could be developed there. But on the contrary, to help the capacity of these countries to develop their own fishing sector, their own processing sector. And in the end, to be very clear, I think our goal, if we are going to be honest about this, is to help these countries develop their own economies.
And in the end, that could also lead to them exporting to us if they have the right hygienic conditions. They could provide thousands of jobs for women who work in fish processing and to the local communities there. So this is, I mean, this is not a clean-cut that we are providing food security through European fishermen going there fishing. But we have this system now. And I think what the commission is talking about is really important, that we have coherence between different policies in the future, yes, SFPA.
But I would like us to talk about them in another way. It's not about access to fish, but it's actually about strengthening partnership and governance in these countries and the capacities in these countries, and making sure we have coherence between what we're doing with development cooperation and with these frameworks on sustainable fisheries governance that we want to help our partner countries to establish, and also where the European fishers, the fishing fleet should lead by example and really push these countries to also demand the same criteria, the same standards for all foreign fishing fleets that are there. So I also welcome the fact that the commission mentioned a standard clause on beneficial ownership of joint ventures. And I think we need to make sure that all EU operators, even if they're operating under the same flag as the partner country or in joint ventures, are following the same standards. So if we're going to have a level playing field, it's not just to have those that are fishing under the SFPA follow these standards and not those from the same country but just buying another flag can circumvent these standards.
So support the governance and making sure that also we cooperate with DG INPA and have a coherent strategy on supporting more local governance, both on science, on control, on processing, and adding value in the country. And of course, transparency is really important. Thank you.
Thank you.
Siegbert Frank Droese
Very much, Madam Chair. And thank you to the commission for the report. It's just a coincidence that I'm sitting here, and I'm turning my back to you, but it's not a matter of disrespect. It's just the way we're sitting. But perhaps some of the things I say won't please you either, but that's not why I'm sitting here with my back to you.
So political consistency and political goals, all these things that you man mentioned, they're quite nice. But my impression is that the European Union, when it deals with their countries where we have agreements, that they are simply not up to date. The world has changed. The world has changed. We have a huge competition with China, and I was if you talked with the president of Seychelles and the fisheries minister, they say quite clearly, pays more, fewer rules, less complicated.
They act more quickly. And, of course, that means that the EU has to be faster and has to really consider whether these high ideals, these lofty goals, if they really should be pursuing those, and then run the danger that they're not even able to compete with these other countries. So the European Union has to place more value on the economic aspects. We should money makes the world go round as we used to say. So if you as a German, of course, we don't have any high sea fisheries anymore, however, but I've learned from Seychelles that the fishers who there are working under European licenses, Spanish colleagues, Dutch colleagues who are catching tuna.
Well, they're using Danish, German machines. They're using German machines. And so if you don't continue to fish there, well, it's of course, it's in our interest because we're producing the machines. So I think it's very important to look at the economic aspects of this because we're in more and more treaties and agreements, but we have eight dormant agreements. Well, why are they dormant?
Well, they're dormant because the partner country allows them to expire, because they're no longer satisfied with the existing conditions. So if they say they need more money, of course, yes, we're going to need more money in the future in order to conclude such agreements. For example, as the representatives from Seychelles said quite clearly, they get a lot more money from China. And so if we see that in the case of fisheries and the MFF, you're cutting the funding for the fishery sector in the MFF. Well, of course, reducing we can't agree to such a funding reduction.
We need good agreements, more economic understanding of this, more focus on economic issues, and less of this discussion of this whole overweighted values issues. Thank you very much.
Yes. Señor Flanagan.
Yes. Thank you. Mister Flanagan.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much. And to me, any agreement has to take in more than basic economic considerations because if we don't, it's actually going to cause economic problems in other ways. It's going to create situations where people have to move from where they live, they don't necessarily want to because their industry and their fishing is gone. And while you mightn't think economically, it won't affect you to carry out unsustainable practices and deprive these people, it will ultimately affect you economically. And while I do understand, as the last speaker said, money makes the world go around, it may make the world go around, but I've never had a decent meal made out of money yet.
Food ultimately will make the world go round. There'll be many situations where people have had suitcases of money, but they couldn't buy any food with it. So money makes the world go round in the saying, alright, but it doesn't actually in reality. And to me, to take up what Lovin was saying, that it's got to benefit these communities as well. It's got to benefit their ability to basically live, to feed themselves, and to develop their countries.
And if their countries are developed, it ultimately helps the whole world, and helps us. So to me, they've got to be more than just the addition of the word sustainable. They've actually got to be sustainable in practice too.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Yes. Thank you. And I'll give the floor back to the commission, Mr. Andresen Guimarães.
Fernando Andresen Guimarães
Indeed, thank you very much to all the honorable members for their comments. I think it's reassuring to our colleagues here and back at Digimari that you are following so closely and are supportive of this important instrument for our fisheries, but also indeed for our ability to provide a standard of sustainable fisheries and engagement in ocean governance that others cannot. And I think that our partners also understand, and I think this should also be part of our communication efforts, that with our SFPAs, this is a good tried and true tool. It's been tweaked throughout the years as honorable member Leuven was referring to. And I think very rightly, the work that she and others have done to make this a strong support here in this House has been very important.
It does provide an economic opportunity for our fleet, but it also does channel local development with our partners, and we bring sustainable standards where we come. And I think that making this work better is our goal, and I think we couldn't have put that better. I think I did not detect any specific questions, but we took a lot of the points that have been made, dormant agreements, and the continuity of protocols. These are issues that are obviously need to be addressed and balanced in terms of what a dormant agreement that would be rescinded would mean in terms of the political engagement with this partner. But we also have to address the question of what happens to a dormant agreement and the exclusivity clause that has an impact on our fisheries, and whether or not we are actually engaging with this partner.
We have and we'll continue to work hand in hand with what our policies on IUU on engagement and leadership in RFMOs are bringing, also because hand in hand complementarity there, and we will continue to reinforce those links with the SFPAs. I think with regard to the question of the Cote D'Ivoire specific, thank you very much for your report. We will look at it carefully. In the lifetime of an agreement, we do engage very much with our partner, both through the modalities provided by the agreement, our own people on the ground. We have attaches located in the regions.
And we, of course, do ex ante and ex post evaluations that provide an opportunity for us to take really the fullest account of the impact, the effectiveness of an agreement. And of course, when it comes to adjusting to fishing opportunities, this is a must. This is a question that, of course, relates to the issue of value for money for the EU. That's very important. So I think social conditions, we have changed and elevated our engagement there.
As you know, this will certainly be part of the course for the new generation. And the question of Guinea Bissau and the points that have been made in that context have been well noted, and we will continue to work to defend and to promote and to raise social conditions of fishers in the EU fleet and in the partners that we engage with. I think that's what I would like to outline. But of course, a lot has been said and we've taken good note, and we will, I'm sure, revert to this issue here in this house. And thank you very much for your time and for your input.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Guimaraes. And before we move on to the next point in camera, I'd mention that with the environmental committee together, we'll be voting on the attempts of France to join the Inter American Convention to Protect Sea Turtles. That will be us. We're working with MV.
That'll be at Antal 2 Q 2, and that'll be at half past or about 15 minutes past six. So I would just suggest that you communicate this. We want to have the biggest turnout possible for that vote again at 06:15 with Envy meeting with PESQ and TAL two q two again at 06:15. So now I'd like to move on to the next item on the agenda, in camera. So we'll be turning off the web stream and be inviting the ushers to accompany all people that are not supposed to stay during this point to the exterior again.
And then after they have left, we will continue at this point.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.