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 sittingsCarmen Crespo Díaz
By show of hands, votes in favor. Against. Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise for?
In favor? Against? Abstentions are adopted. Amendment a 117 votes in favor? Against?
Abstentions? We're going to check a 117. So the vote is open. The vote is closed, rejected by 11 votes to against. Compromise 13 votes in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
Compromise, five votes in favor. Against abstentions, adopted. Compromise, six votes in favor. Against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise, seven votes in favor.
Against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise eight in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted. Compromise nine in favor.
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Compromise 10 in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted.
Compromise 11 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Compromise 12 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. So that brings us on to the final vote, which will be by roll-call. So the vote is open.
The vote is closed. That is adopted. 22 votes in favor, 3 against, and 1 abstention. So that brings us on to the vote on the interinstitutional negotiating mandate. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Just a moment. Yes. The vote is closed. That's adopted.
So congratulations to the rapporteur, to the shadows, and to all of us for the work we've done on that. So that takes us to the next vote. And this is on the implementation into union law of measures adopted by several regional fisheries management organizations. The rapporteur is Thomas Pallada, and the committee responsible is PES. So we will now vote by a single vote, a final vote, and we're going to do that electronically.
So the vote is open. Okay. The vote is closed. That is adopted. 23 votes in favor.
Four abstentions, congratulations again to the rapporteur and to the shadows, and again to the committee as a whole. So with that, we can close the votes for this committee session, and we can make a start on the agenda. So, as you know, on our agenda, we have a public hearing. Perhaps I'll just wait a few moments because there are people leaving the room, and then we will start the hearing. Good morning.
Once again, good morning to those who have joined us. As you know, our committee is quite open to people attending. And I also wanted to highlight the importance of what we're going to be dealing with coming up in committees. The evaluation of the CFP was published on the thirtieth. This is going to be an important moment for us, an important moment for debate in this committee, and in committees to come, and also in the plenary.
I'd like to welcome the fact that we'll have Mister Cadis coming on the third to kick off this debate, June 3. And then it's an important issue for us, given how long it's been enforced. And with that, we will move on to today's public hearing. This is a public hearing on the issue of how we can increase competitiveness in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors by reducing bureaucracy and regulation. Today, we are hoping to hear about additional potential to reduce bureaucracy and the compliance burden, and also to increase the competitiveness of our sectors.
This hearing will be an opportunity for us to shape the future work of our committee. We've had recent debates on the control regulation, on the commission simplification report, and I think that demonstrates that we, this committee, take very seriously the concerns that have arisen regarding the excessive burden on our officials. I would like to welcome our 5 speakers. Five excellent speakers. Each of them will be given the floor for 8 minutes for their presentation.
And following those presentations, we will have a round of questions from the members. But before I start the hearing, I would like to introduce the first panel, which is mapping bureaucracy and the regulatory burden in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. The first speaker is Jose Paserio Otero Rodriguez. And as you all know, he is the president of the Spanish National Federation of Cofradías. You will have also seen that he's been to the committee before.
We're very pleased to see him again. I will then be giving the floor to Adi Risu, who is the president of the European Moths Producers Association. So we will be giving him the floor again in a moment's time, and he will provide useful information for our committee's work. Then I will be giving the floor to Elena Gesi, who is the head of the fisheries and aquaculture sector at Legacop Agroalimentare in Italy. And finally, I will give the floor to Mister Ante Gotovina from the company Pelagos Net Pharma in Sardar, Croatia.
And the final speaker will be Martha Cavalier, the executive secretary of Low Impact Fishers of Europe. And she will take the floor at the end of the list, and then we will have an opportunity to put questions. We also have representatives of Gigi Mare, Marta Genakovic, and we will have an opportunity to hear from them too, subsequently in camera as we move on to the next document. But let's make a start without further ado. As I said, the first session is mapping bureaucracy and the regulatory burden in the fisheries and agriculture sectors. And our first speaker will be the president of the Spanish National Federation of Cofradías, Jose Basilio Otero Rodriguez.
So I will give him the floor for 8 minutes. Whenever you're ready, welcome to you, and thank you very much for coming to join us today.
José Basilio Otero Rodríguez
Kerrida Carmen. Dear Carmen, dear President, thank you very much. Thank you very much for inviting fishers to this public hearing. I think it's very important, not just for fishers themselves, but I think it's important for you as legislators an opportunity to hear about our issues. Now we have a very amiable assistant who's going to be passing the slides for me.
Thank you very much. But I won't necessarily coordinate with what I've put on the slides, so you might have to keep up with me. We fishers are sometimes a bit rebellious, and we're sometimes unpredictable. Perhaps not perfect speakers, but we are good fishers. And we are very happy to be here, and we do appreciate the invitation today.
Chair, thank you very much. Dear members of the European Parliament, thank you very much for inviting us as well. Since the last elections, well, we have approached this legislature with a lot of hope. We hoped that it would be a new electoral period, and one that was extremely hopeful. However, that changed quite quickly, and we must say that things have not gone the way we hoped since the evaluation of the CFP, which was published last week.
Well, I need to be very clear. The sector is losing its patience. Now there are no urgent changes being proposed here. We need to improve the capacity of the fleet in order to deal with the challenges of fishing today. And we have to recall that in the last RMFO report, it was stated that we're only capable of providing 20% of what Europe consumes in terms of our fishing and agriculture, and the rest has to be imported.
We continue to accumulate costs and regulations, which increase the burden for our activity. European fishing doesn't need more diagnostics or reviews. What we need is decisions. What we need, what we see rather is an accumulation of regulations with a negative socioeconomic economic effect. Excuse me.
We've seen a proliferation of regulations here compared to other places around the world, and we've lost 28% of our fleet, 23% of the jobs in only 6 years. The CFP contributes to this situation. It does not uptake the proper challenges of the fleet to deal with management issues or other problems. We really need a balance between biological sustainability and socio-economic viability. There's no sustainability, as our Spanish minister has said, if there's not profitability.
And that has never been better said. The CFP evaluation changing a couple of rules will not do this between now and 2020, and fishing, it goes much beyond that regulation. We need to reorientate the constellation of regulations which deal with fish, the control regulation, digital traceability, the catch system, which in Spain works in an unimprovable manner and has really complicated the lives of our fisher exporters when it comes to the European catch system. Certain weighing rules, well, we simply have seen new acts increasing regulatory burden. What we need is a simplified omnibus package.
The landing obligation is very difficult to apply. It's led to a loss of income, especially in mixed fisheries. So we need a more flexible approach, and one that is better adapted to this sector. We need flexibility when it comes to forced landings, and we need better exchange between member states, as well as the exclusion of certain species when it's justified. We should perhaps suspend the zero tax, or indeed those measures which have disproportionate effects.
We need to use digitalization as a tool and remote control in order to improve things. A clear case is the Mediterranean. The supposed management plan reduces what we can do, and we need to improve that plan by reducing by removing the reference to the most vulnerable stocks. We need more adapted measures, and then consider the double administrative load which is put onto fishes. There is just one species which has both maximum catches as well as other regulations.
And the closure of 87 fishing zones has meant that efforts have been displaced, and costs have increased. We really need to better redefine what are vulnerable marine zones. We need to reverse the closure of those 87 zones. As well as adopt more ecological processes, but that do not increase burden. We need to restore the balance, and we would like to have more legible regulations, which are easy to understand.
We also, more generally, ladies and gentlemen, what we need to do is to try to achieve, or rather not try, but actually achieve both in terms of kilowatts as well as horsepower. We need to measure capacity in a different way. When the European Union accepted Spain as a member, well, choke species were not on the table. We see other important pressures. Wind power, marine wind power, is a problem for fishers because rather than ensuring that these spaces are compatible with our fishing zones, in fact, they've been implemented.
And then later, the question has been asked if it works for fishers. So there's a lack of logic there, perhaps. And then to conclude, dear members of the Pesh Committee, other sectors have listened, but fishing has not yet been listened to or not sufficiently. We've not been sufficiently heard. In English, there's perhaps just the one word we need, but what we need to be heard is really heard.
We need an omnibus packet that really simplifies things, and in a cross-cutting way. We need balanced policies, regulations which are implied equally, and that recognize that we are a strategic sector. We are no less ambitious. We don't want privileges. We want rules that work, and we want equality.
But what we're asking for is urgent and transformative change. Could I ask you to go to the last slide, please? So here, this is just one example of the inconsistency of the modification of the control regulation. Here, this is an extract of an inspection which took place under the zero kilo rule. Everything which is highlighted on the right-hand side, these are infractions, in fact.
And in many cases, it might be for 100 grams, and that imposes a huge fine. So that's the inconsistency, I think, the real problem with modifying the control regulation for the omnibus. Thank you very much for listening, and I am available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Thank you so much.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you very much, Mr. Rotero. The fishers that are here do have a special place. How else could it be in this committee? So we'll now give the floor to Mister Adi Risiou, president of the European Mollusks Producers Association, the EMPA. You also have eight minutes, and then we will open a discussion with the MEPs.
The discussion is always useful. It's always enriching for the work that we're going to carry out. Thank you very much for being with us. You have the floor.
Addy Risseeuw
Thank you, dear chair, dear members. Thanks for the invitation. I am Adi Rasio, chairman of EMPA. That's the European Mollusk Producers Association, and it brings together the producers of France, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, and the UK. And together, we represent more than 90% of the bivalve production and marketing in Europe.
And the bivalve farming generates annual production of more than €1,170,000,000, and that's about 50% of EU agricultural production. And it employs about 20,000 workers, and it has about 6,000 enterprises. Behind these figures are coastal communities where shelf is farming is not simply an industry. It's a way of life, cultural heritage, and in many cases, the primary source of employment and the local economy. The potential for growth is real.
Bifoule farming is one of the few food production systems that can simultaneously productive and is environmentally beneficial, and it is aligned with the EU sustainability objectives. It requires no feed, no land, and no fresh water. And its carbon footprint is almost the lowest of any animal production. And yet, this sector has been in a steady decline for about 20 years at the European level. And then before I turn to specifics, I would like to make a structural observation on the administrative burden weighing on our producers every day.
And, that's the reason aquaculture operates without the institutional architecture that other comparable sectors have. There is no common agricultural policy. And at the last evaluation of the CFP published last week, there is no binding EU framework that sets coherent objectives and coordinated instruments, and it provides the political goal necessary for a systematic change. Consequence is direct. Administrative simplification, when it happens, happens in fragments without any overarching logic and no strong political guidance.
And we believe that a revision of the common fishery policy, creating a specific common agricultural policy, providing coordination and binding measures for member states, is an essential funding for the kinds of structural simplification that our sector needs. I wanted to state this point clearly because it's the structural context in which all of our specific requests are. And the producers I represent are mostly family businesses, companies with less than 10 employees. They do not have staff who can navigate all the administrative procedures. And when the complexity increases, normally, large operators can adapt, but the small farmers can rarely do that.
The administrative burden falls directly on the farmer at the end of the working day. And it's a key factor that's because established farmers are leaving the industry and younger generations, they lose interest. I will illustrate this with some examples that we face every day. First one is that to operate a shellfish concession, a producer may be required to interact with national and regional authorities, coastal management agencies, environmental bodies, sanitary inspection services, and port authorities, each with their own procedures, timelines, and forms. There is no single entry point.
And in many member states, coordination between the bodies does not exist. And the result is that time is lost and many procedures are there. As you know, agricultural vessels are still classified as fishing vessels in at the
EU level.
Addy Risseeuw
And in France, this led to a decree requiring sanitary facilities to be installed on the shellfish barges. And this requirement has since then been revised, where it illustrates a deeper and more serious problem. Agriculture is everywhere and nowhere in the regulatory landscape. We ask the member states and the EU frameworks to invest in the quality and coherence of the administrative networks and serving the aquaculture. Second example is about data collection.
Closely linked to administrative capacity is the issue of data. Across member states, agricultural data collection remains fragmented, inconsistent, and poorly suited to shellfish production. Producers are often required to report the same information many times to different authorities in different formats and timelines, and without ensuring the coherence at the national or EU level. And the result is, fragmented policy responses. It weakens the sector's visibility and its representation in the EU debates, and also its access to funding reports.
So what we call for is a more harmonized and streamlined aquaculture data collection with a single report pathway when it's possible. A third example is about the licensing procedures. The agricultural farmers don't own the land. Their farms are concessions from the public domain, and obtaining or renewing a license to operate a self in concession can take several years depending on the member states. In our 2024 manifesto, we called explicitly to the urgent simplification of licensing frameworks and accelerating the granting of new licenses.
I would like to ask the committee to support measures that streamline licensing procedures and extend the validity of operating permits without reducing environmental oversight. Dear chair, I also have examples, for example, environmental studies, also about crisis reimbursement mechanisms, and the access to European funds, which is also very complicated. But to extend on these examples would go over the eight minutes, so I will not do that. I would like to come to the conclusion. The producers I represent are not asking to be exempt from rules.
They are asking for rules that are proportionate, coherent, and adapted to the scale of their enterprises. Environmental protection remains essential for our activity as well. Living Waters are our production tool and rely on the implementation of environmental regulations, but they must be implemented in a way that is workable and balanced. What is needed is proportionality, better coordination, and a system that truly functions for the people it regulates. And while 70% of the seafood consumed in the EU is currently imported, bivalve farming has real potential to expand sustainable domestic production.
The challenge we have described is solvable, we think. And AMPA, our organization, stands ready to work constructively with the committee to build a clearer and more coherent framework that allows European agriculture to grow and to compete fairly and to fully deliver its environmental and social value. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you very much, mister Riso, and thank you very much also for keeping to the time. I know that was quite tricky, but it does leave time for our discussion. Thank you very much. So we'll now give the floor to Elena Ghesi, head of the fisheries and aquaculture section sector, rather at Legacorp Agriolimonter Italy. We appreciate very much you being with us today for your work and for joining the committee today.
Please, you have the floor.
Elena Ghezzi
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. That's what Leonardo da Vinci said. So talking about simplification to help the competitiveness of companies, I think, is an issue which is at the heart of European food production and the future of our coastal communities. Over the years, the EU has put in place rules on the sustainability of resources, traceability of products, and so on. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that, particularly if you look at this from the point of view of the SMEs, which are typical in the sector, this has actually meant complication, further complicating the sector.
I'm Elena Getsi, responsible for increasing competitiveness of fisheries and aquaculture in Lega Corp. Rules are needed. Simplifying doesn't mean lowering standards. We need to ensure that fishers can place their trust in the system, and we need to ensure that policies actually achieve their aims. That means rules have to be clearer, more accessible, and more efficient. If we look at production, there are three key principles that lawmakers should bear in mind, particularly if they take account of production in the light of simplification.
We need legislative coordination, proportionality, and a level playing field within the single market. Legislative coordination means coherence between policies and timelines. The timeline for decision-taking is just as important as the content of the decisions. So I've outlined five or six areas here, but I think examples are always the most illustrative. So I'll go straight to an example: lack of legislative coordination.
404, 12 of 2024 regulation failing to be applied correctly. Lack of a reference for logbooks on paper. Up until 2028, smaller companies will be able to use paper versions, and there won't be any standard in place for that. Now, obviously, it's maybe not the end of the world, but it would have been helpful if you're talking about data collection to have some kind of system, having all the data in the same place, and knowing where it is. Another point which has a significant impact on our companies is that this repeal of four zero four is complicated by the fact that in order to get funding, there is a conditionality provision.
Certain infringements lead to failure to access the fund. But in other cases, there are cross-references to other forms. Annex 30 points one and two is a cross-reference referred to, but it has been repealed. It's been replaced by another annex of the regulation. I'm not sure that the lawmaker was really intending to refer to points 1 and 2 of the new annex 30 because it's all about IUU.
It's illegal and unreported, and so on. Fisheries without a permit or without identification of the vessel. So I'm pretty certain that the legislator was not intending to refer to those points in the annex. When it comes to timelines for decision-taking, I'd like to refer to AgriFish in December. They decided on fishing opportunities for 15 days later.
So fishers are told, in 15 days, this is what you'll be able to do. We ask our fishers to be entrepreneurs, to take an entrepreneurial spirit. They've got a very difficult market, with huge amounts of imports. We tell them what they're allowed to fish with 15 days' notice. Seriously?
I mean, what kind of planning is that for not just the long term, but for the medium term, more than two weeks ahead? Next slide. Another fundamental principle is proportionality. And by that, I mean making the rules fit the context and the type of business. Not everything that works in the Mediterranean will work in the Atlantic, and vice versa.
Not everything that works for surface fisheries will work for pelagic species and to trawlers, and vice versa. But to be positive for a moment, if you look at the size of companies, the control regulations article nine does refer to this. Under 12 meters, you don't need certain control equipment items on board, and you can use mobile nets. That means that smaller-scale fishers can have a smartphone on board, and that's how they can be located. They don't necessarily need to install equipment on the vessel to provide the location.
Now that's positive. Now that takes account of the size of the company. As the earlier speaker said on aquaculture, there are so many examples too of proportionality. Look at the size of aquaculture companies in Europe. We're talking about small, maybe medium-sized companies.
The biggest, to 2025, regulation on transport of live animals. If you're talking about small companies and you say you have to check on ammonia and CO2 and so on in animal transport, we talk about huge costs for them. They won't manage to fund that, apart from the fact that I'm not even sure if we've got the technology available for certain parameters to be measured during transport in transit. On the other point, level playing field. Equal competition conditions.
This means that within a given market, everyone should be competing on a level playing field. An example of this, control regulation. Here, member states do have the possibility of taking decisions as to which criteria they will be using in order to determine that an infringement has been a serious infringement. So you have the same infringement with different possible consequences. I don't think that's a level playing field.
That doesn't put all European fishers in the same situation, facing the same consequences for their actions because the penalty could be widely different. And depending on what kind of penalty there is, you might be exempted from receiving fisheries aid payments. And it makes a huge difference knowing whether you're going to lose your eligibility for EU funding as a consequence of having this penalty imposed. Agriculture permits and the timetable are there. A few months in some member states, a few years in other member states.
One solution might be to have a range, a period of time, which is defined, and member states have to stick to that range of periods for issuing or renewing permits. That would help with a level playing field. And then in some sectors, the extractive sector in some circumstances, minerals, for instance. The EU is doing this. Sorry.
I had to rush through this a bit. Apologies to the interpreters. Onto the next one. Without legal certainty, there can be no investment. And without fairness, there can be no market.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Getsi, for your presentation. We'll move on to the next speaker now, Mister Ante Gotovina of the company Pelagos Netfarma in Zadar, Croatia. To my right, you have 8 minutes for your speech to this hearing. Thank you for coming.
Ante Gotovina
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, honorable members. First, allow me to briefly introduce myself. My name is Antti Kotovina, and today, I will be presenting on behalf of Pelagos Net Pharma, the Bluefin tuna aquaculture and fisheries company based in Croatia. Today, in my presentation, I will outline the major challenges which the sector is currently facing, including structural pressures arising from the administrative burden that undermines the sector's development, followed by our key proposals for boosting the sector's competitiveness. When we go to the next slide, please.
According to article 2 of CPP regulation shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social, and employment benefits and of contributing to the availability of food supplies. Are we doing enough to turn this commitment into reality? Before turning to the key challenges, I would like to emphasize the importance of the sector as it plays a key role in food security, providing a source of essential seafood products as well as ensuring food supplies in times of crisis. The sector offers quality jobs to island, coastal, and rural communities, providing livelihoods for thousands of EU citizens from these areas. The sector also enhances other related sectors such as tourism and export by boosting local economies and bolstering EU strategic business partnerships with third countries.
The sector is also important in terms of preserving tradition. For many island and coastal communities, the sector is their lifeblood and the core part of their identity. They aim to pass this heritage onto future generations as generations before them did. Now I come to the challenges. The first of them being related to environmental factors. Climate change as a disruptive factor affects rising seawater temperatures, shifting ocean currents, and sea level rise, thus affecting the dynamics, distribution, and recovery of fish populations.
Next is the regulatory administrative burden, which I will address in more detail in the next slide, including so unequal market conditions is another challenge. The aquaculture and fish processing sector must meet strict procedural and certification requirements to supply the EU market, while equivalent certification is not mandatory for seafood products from non-EU countries. This disparity undermines the sector's competitiveness and, to so, excuse me, this disparity undermines the competitiveness of EU aquaculture and seafood producers compared to third country competitors. The EU currently meets only about 40% of its own needs for fish products, relying on the remaining 60% of the imports. The challenges for employment and generational renewal are reflected in declining employment in the fisheries and aquaculture sector due to an aging workforce.
Several factors undermine the sector's attractiveness, including economic, labor-related, and environmental factors. Among these, the economic factors are the most significant ones as they imply the excessive government bureaucracy and strict complex regulatory framework, which impose high compliance costs, leaving fisheries and aquaculture sector financially fragile. Due to low economic profitability, the sector is unable to allocate additional financial resources to increase wages. Moving on to the next one. In this slide, please.
Next slide. In this slide, I will highlight the key administrative challenges in the current CPP regulatory framework and demonstrate how it fails to reflect the realities on the ground, creating a gap between policy design and practical implementation. Firstly, some regulations are obsolete. Rules were adopted years ago and no longer affect the current state of marine resources or technological progress. So, secondly, administrative requirements are not applicable in practice, referring to the lending obligation under the CPP regulation.
For example, maintaining catch records with a tolerance margin of only 10% in terms of quantity, size, and species composition of mixed catch. In practice, this level of precision is impossible to achieve, particularly for mixed catches and under difficult weather conditions. As a result, the requirement becomes unrealistic, leading to unintentional administrative violations without delivering meaningful benefits. Thirdly, the procedures for obtaining concessions are lengthy and rigid. Here, I would like to highlight the projected process of obtaining permits, obligatory environmental impact studies, which can take two to three years to complete, followed by sectoral consents, which overlap across multiple government departments, resulting in total approval times that frequently exceed five years.
Any modifications within the concession area required the issuance of a new location permit, creating a bureaucratic loop. Furthermore, GFCM measures include the introduction of seasonal closures, bans on fishing activities, minimum conservation reference size, vessel capacity limits, and the establishment of inspection. Reduced fishing days and the loss of traditional fishing grounds result in longer voyages, further lowering the profitability of fishing vessels. As for Bluefin Tuna harvesting operation, the new regulation EU 2024/97, previously regulation EU 2017/2107, is amended allowing the harvest of bluefin tuna at farm sites under supervision of national inspectors, limited to two quantities up to 50 tons per year, one ton per day as a financial relief from international observer related costs. However, the small quantity per year and harvest limit per day are reasons the measure does not significantly enhance the cost-efficiency of the fisheries product.
The administrative burden and resulting high and unnecessary compliance costs have over the years made the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector increasingly dependent on the EMFAF support, which mitigates structural pressures only to a limited extent. Moving on to the next slide. Excuse me. So to wrap up my presentation, next slide please. Yes.
To wrap up my presentation, I will highlight the key solution proposals for enhancing the CPP regulatory framework. Number one, adopting more flexible catch logbooks. Under the lending obligation, catch data must be reported before lending, with a 10% tolerance margin. We call for more flexible catch logbooks and propose increasing this margin or allowing fishers to sort and process the catch first and then submit accurate data within a more practical reporting window, for example, 48 to 72 hours after landing. This would create more accurate data for the SCC DCF when giving evidence-based advice to the European Commission.
Number two, reducing the regulatory burden on the aquaculture sector. We call for amending the regulation EU 2024/897 by increasing the bluefin tuna harvest limit without control coverage to 200 tons, thereby reducing observer-related costs and improving the cost efficiency of the fishery product. Number three, the MSY model is outdated and fails to capture the spatial dynamics and migratory behavior of small paralagic fish and to account for the predominant influence of climate change on fish stocks. We, therefore, call for its revision and the introduction of adaptive management. It is essential to explicitly incorporate climate change repercussions and decrease of predator populations as disruptive factors in the Adriatic Sea, in order to improve the accuracy and relevance of fish stock monitoring.
Number four, repealing counterproductive regulations, which generate high unnecessary compliance costs, and revising others to introduce more flexible, adaptive rules aligned with up-to-date biological data and technological progress. And number five, aquaculture concession regulatory burden. It is essential to shorten the period of obtaining environmental impact studies and allow flexible licenses for new modifications in aquaculture concessions to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy loop. In conclusion of my presentation, under article two of CPP regulation, fisheries must balance the environmental sustainability with socio economic stability. With the EU importing 60% of its seafood needs, management measures should not further weaken a sector vital to food security.
We call for all future regulations to include mandatory socioeconomic impact assessments and clearly defined compensation mechanisms to ensure both fisheries and marine ecosystems remain viable for future generations. Thank you.
Thank.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
thank you very much. We'll now move on to the next speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Gottovina. We'll now move on to the next speaker, Miss Marta Caballier, executive secretary of Low Impact Fishers of Europe. You have the floor for eight minutes, too.
Thank.
you. Thank.
You, madam.
Marta Cavallé
All the PEHSH committee members to invite us to this presentation, which I will focus on the small scale fishery sector. We are a network of small-scale fishers organizations across Europe. We are 40 organizations from 18 member states, and we represent 10,000 small-scale fishers. As a first reflection, we want to say that boosting competitiveness is key for moving from survival to a thriving and fair sustainable fishery sector. Next slide, please.
There's no secret that small-scale fisheries have reached a tipping point in decline, and there's an aging fleet and fishing population. So if we want to build better prospects of the future and a generation of renewal, boosting competitiveness is key and recognizing them as a strategic sector. Next slide, please. But what are the main factors affecting this competitiveness? We highlight here six of them, which I will explain later, but we can also say that the lack of recognition is a central point that unites them all.
Next slide, please. So the first of the factors is obviously the environmental factors, which is a basic one because we totally depend on the health of and functionality of our ecosystems and stocks. So it's essential and urgent that we boost the restoration of fish stocks and ecosystem functionality through better implementation and also using the Ocean Act as a tool. We have at long last called for a review of the scientific advice process utilizing BMSY as the key target reference point. And we need to address these shortcomings that undermine the stock recovery and the ecosystem-based approach.
Next slide, please. So the second of the factors is access to resources. There is a total lack of fair and level playing fields for the different actors to compete fairly. Small scale fisheries have starved of fishing opportunities over decades, with less than five percent of fishing opportunities allocated to them. And instead, concentrating political influence in ever fewer hands.
It's been ten years, and we just reached now a better MACOM, but still, we need stronger political will from member states to make our sectors competitive. So we need the Ocean Act also to finally operationalize article 17 in the CFP in the spirit of the law, ensuring that the allocation of fishing opportunities reflects sustainability and equity, that preferential treatment is done for young fishers. And finally, make binding a minimum of 20% of the total opportunities reserved for small scale fisheries. Next slide, please. The third factor is the spatial squeeze and the environmental impact of the other blue economy sectors.
We have to think that small-scale fishes are less mobile than any other segment of the sector. So the policy and physical spaces are increasingly being squeezed and now threatened also for the important plan expansion of large scale blue economy sectors. So to overcome this, we propose that there's an establishment of regenerative fissure areas where they're securing preferential access to small scale, low impact and low end activities within the 12 mile zone. Also, the challenge is not just to make the marine spatial planning more inclusive, but to make it fair where those that have less of a voice, but that are important sectors, are heard meaningfully in the decision-taking processes. So we need the Ocean Act also to establish clear guidelines and make participation, access rights, tender security, and co management as the norm in any marine spatial planning process.
Next slide, please. Access to markets. Small scale fisheries products have the potential to add significant added value, but however, they are not differentiated in the market. An essential element here is how to make our structures dedicated to small scale fisheries PO created new ones and strengthened existing ones because these would be the structures that will achieve better access to resources, better access to space, to funding, to everything, even innovation. But member states do not have to take sufficient account of the specificities of small scale fisheries, laying down criteria for recognition of dedicated POs.
And the CMO should improve to become an enabling framework. We want the local and fair, sustainable food systems to be strengthened. In the case of Spain, for example, there's high volume as the only criterion for having a small scale fishery as a PO. In France, there's a maximum number of POs. Or in Ireland, they took five years to recognize the existing ones and link it to the MFF.
Next slide, please. Another issue is the lack of dedicated support. Being us, 70, the seventy-fifth percent of the fleet, we only get 20% of the allocated funds, and we even think that this data here is overestimated. It could be even less than that. There are structural and administrative barriers that currently prevent full access to those who need it the most.
So we need a dedicated small scale fisheries fund that dedicates to energy transition for the fluid renewal, for the sustainable practices, to market access, including creating and strengthening the existing POs. And, also, we need the technical support and streamlined fit-for-purpose delivery system to ensure that this support really reaches the sector. This includes the maintaining of the 100% support, but also upfront financial facilities, low interest loans, and remove minimal thresholds for subsidies or minimum turnover, like in cases of Germany or France, or the removal of having the membership fee in a PO as a complementary thing. We need to simplify the process of application and reporting, and we need the technical support for that as well. All these factors are essential causes for the young generation not to be engaged in the sector.
But even when we do, we have constant barriers to entering the profession. Next slide, there's training constraints, their access to fishing opportunities and financial support constraints, and there's huge bureaucracy on the lack of technical support for this. This is the case of Macarena, for example, who is a fisherwoman that is painting. It's taken a year for her after buying a boat to actually go and fish, to solve all the paperwork that is needed. So instead of having these barriers, we need to take them out and have a red-carpet approach for them. We need offering timely fit for purpose supported training, including mentoring and apprenticeships systems to establish administrative clarity and guidance, making diversification possible from an administrative perspective.
We need to explore collective ownership schemes like the project Merge de Leon is doing in France, or improve social rights and equity, social security and coverage, and health protection. All those issues would help to incorporate young fishers. And next slide, please. So as a résumé, you will see that all those factors have to do with the lack of recognition and action for small-scale fisheries. We have a lack of a differentiated approach.
And even at the Ocean Pact, which recognizes small scale fisheries as priority, it doesn't say how. So what we will need is the Ocean Act to set a specific target and have a plan of action for small-scale fisheries in Europe, incorporating the principles of FAO voluntary guidelines for small-scale fisheries and including concrete timelines and indicators. This is the line that would unite all of the dots. Next slide, please. Because boosting competitiveness of small scale fisheries is also boosting the essential benefits behind it, which otherwise we risk losing.
So we need action, and we need it now. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you very much, Miss Caballet. Thank you for that speech. We'll hear from coordinators first three minutes each, and then we'll hear from other members one and a half minutes each. Miss Le Kalanek, EPP. President.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you very much, madam chair. In Brittany, there was a fissure lost at sea. The vessel was found wrecked on the coast of Galicia, and I'd like to spare a thought for that fisher. Now think of the dangers. Think of the ordeals that people go through.
This community gives us food. We should thank them, and we should make their lives easier. We, in the EPP, took the initiative of calling for this debate. Thank you to all the panelists. We want to answer this question as to how we can improve the competitiveness both of fisheries and aquaculture.
In the EPP, we believe that cutting the regulatory and administrative burden is one key way. Do we need standards? Our priority should not be to reduce fleets or make the burden bigger. There was a message from 18 ministers to the commission in February 2026 saying simplification means better regulation, and this is something which has been discussed in the AGRIFICE Council for a long time. In many other areas, the commission has proposed simplified procedures in order to simplify the regulatory framework and to improve implementation on the ground.
Yesterday, fisheries ministers met in Cyprus with commissioner Kadres and reiterated this request. Thank you for your tangible proposal. Finally, we've seen good sense and pragmatism, thorough, precise, and in some cases, nothing new. For instance, on maximum sustainable yield, landing obligations, control, permits, access to aquaculture, live animal transport regulations, on labeling and packaging, and the costs overall that have an impact on fish company competitiveness and indeed on the sector as a whole. Listening to you, the solutions seem crystal clear.
We need to ensure that this sector is highly visible, because it's crucial to our food security. So a simple question to each of you. How can you explain the fact that all your good ideas have still failed to be implemented? Where's the blockage? Is it member states?
Is it the EU? Is it a bit of both? Spoiler alert. That's my theory. And how can we get rid of those barriers?
André Franqueira Rodrigues
In the fisheries committee of the European Parliament, we're here to help you. Thank you for what you do. Thank you very much, Miss Lekelenik, Mister Rodriguez. I'd like to start by expressing my gratitude to all the panelists for coming here to the committee, and thank you for your presentation, sir. They've given voice to a lot of the concerns that we have in this committee.
We like to work hand in hand with fisher communities. I'm from a fishing community in the Azores myself, and I like to stay very closely in touch with them. And the pest committee will be coming to my region on a mission in a few weeks. Any simplification of the administrative burden is very welcome. Fishers themselves want to ensure their sustainability.
They want to ensure that they will have a livelihood in the future. But when we have legislative simplification, we should not be particularly affecting island communities and outermost regions who face particular costs because of their circumstances. So mister Otero Rodriguez, with the lessons learned from the past about the need to combine sustainability and profitability, when you look at the European Commission proposal for the next MFF, what we see there in fisheries is justified on the basis of simplification. This is a bait, bigger financial share than we've seen in the past, but we're seeing a historic crisis now for the fisheries sector. How can the commission proposal help with simplification?
The external dimension of the common fisheries policy: 70% of what the EU consumes in terms of fisheries products has come from outside the EU. What measures could be done here? It's 70%. It's a significant figure, so we should look at what we should do and what new measures would be possible there. For mister Riso and also mister Gottolvina, aquaculture data for the EU.
It's all rather a mystery to me. It seems to be basically untapped potential. There's huge potential for the sector, but we're still not tapping into that potential. It kind of falls into a halfway house. It's not exactly land.
It's not exactly the sea. We need to look at the capacity of our production. Sex of the difficult, complex environment in which they are operating. There are specific criteria there, too. Which points of EU legislation would you like to change?
If you had a magic wand, what would you change right now to make it easier for your sector? What is done at EU level rather than national level, and what could be changed in your view? Thanks. Thank you very much, thank you, madam chair. Thank you, panelists, for coming.
France Jamet
Breath of fresh air in this room here, today. We don't hear enough from the people on the front line, the people who are actually on the ground living this reality. And I think this also helps us because some of us have been fighting against this rule inflation, if you like, this, we've been trying to hold back the tide of red tape for over 10 years now, so it's high time to have this. And I'd like to thank you, madam chair, for taking this initiative. It is my view that people are today recognizing how self-evident some of these problems are, whereas people were turning a blind eye to them not too long ago.
I think one of the reasons the sector is facing so many difficulties now, is that it's gone through different crises. It got through COVID, resource crisis, fuel crisis. Now the sector itself had come in for a lot of attacks and flack from the EU itself, the landing obligation standard, for instance, which urgently requires repeal. I think everybody agrees it's inapplicable, so we just need to get rid of it because this was kind of like a thunderclap that hit fishers overnight. No negotiation.
No warning. And I think we need to get away not only with red tape, but we need a vision for the future. What are fishers and agriculture concerned about now? Being dependent on the European Commission. Member states are not taking their decisions, madam.
The commission is taking the decisions, member states are trying to fight back against those decisions. There's a long list. We don't have time to go through it all, but I think it's about turning things around, turning it on its head, doing it the other way around, not having this top-down imposition, we need a virtuous circle inspired by resources, inspired by those who are working on the ground. And on the waters are fishers and aquaculture workers who know what they're doing, who know what the reality is on the ground, know what kind of rules would make things easier rather than having these rules dictated in such a way that brings the sector to its knees and undermines food security, which also undermines our competitiveness. My group will be particularly attentive to standards and policies that some would like in the oceans pact that would be extremely dangerous for your sector.
One final comment. You can count on us. You can count on our group. Congratulations, and thank you for your resilience, for your resistance, and for your tenacity.
Stephen Nikola Bartulica
Thank you, chair. I wanna welcome all the panelists to this hearing. In my view, it's one of the more important occasions we've had in this committee. Very important to hear directly from people who are actually providing the fish we take for granted that we're eating and consuming on a daily basis. The figure of 70% importing from outside the EU is alarming, and I have long made the case that we have lost the balance between sustainability and protecting the interests of the fishing sector.
It seems obvious. We're just moving in circles, repeating the same observations that we have to cut the red tape. Many of these burdens are simply not applicable on the ground. I think that should be obvious to everyone. If we want the fishing sector to survive, we have to simply change radically the way this is designed.
I think there's really no debate about this. It seems obvious in Croatia when the government announces a call for new younger fishermen to enter the fishing industry, almost no one applies. There's very little interest, and it seems clear why that is. The sector is under increasing pressure. The EU, unfortunately, has created new players like Turkey who are expanding and growing, and they don't have to abide by the same rules.
And so I think we have to really take a careful look and put pressure on the decision makers to revise the whole framework. Mister Gottovina, it's a pleasure to welcome you here at the European Parliament. I'm very happy that you could make the trip. It's very important to have someone who's actually producing fish and in this reality to testify here before the committee. I have two questions.
We have spoken about the landing obligations. I think it's clear that this is not working. I was hoping you could elaborate on why this is such an unpractical and burden that is simply causing problems on a daily basis for fishermen, first of all, so the landing obligation. Second, if you could focus on the bluefin tuna. So this is something that in Croatia is a very important part of the fishing sector.
This allowance of 50 tonnes annually and the one tonne daily allowance. Why is this not profitable? So what is the reality when we're looking at these amounts for your business model? It seems that you have a good case, and what I would just hope is that you could elaborate on that. So thank you very much.
Thank.
Ana Miranda Paz
Thank you very much, madam chair. And I'd like to start by welcoming all the participants. Some of them we've been familiar with for many years, such as Mister Cecilio Otero and Marta, and also the other people that we've worked with in our parliamentary group. The reality is that bureaucracy is drowning fishers. The reality is that we have a very significant gap between Brussels and what actually happens in the ports.
And what you're telling us is that the sector is at risk, not just the artisanal fisheries sector, but all branches of the sector, including aquaculture and shellfish fishing. So we have the reality on the ground, and then we have the bureaucracy. And what is happening now is that many of these policies are leading fishers to go out of business. They're reducing financial viability. And as we saw in the commission's intermediate report, we have seen over the last 10 years over 21,500 people who worked at sea.
So if we look at the Galician estuaries, for example, there are over 500 people who are out of work in the shellfish sector because they cannot go out to work. That's the situation with the sector. So that's my first point. And then to mister Otero, you mentioned the point of importance of recognition. In Spain, we have a very specific problem, which is a lack of recognition for some of the most important historic bodies when it comes to the fishery sector, and that is the cofradias.
Now the cofradias ought to be recognized at a European level. It is true that there is a problem at a member state level, at the level of the national state, but we do need that recognition because not all organizations can be producer organizations. It involves a lot of bureaucracy. And if you're a small association, that's not feasible. And then there's a role of women in fisheries.
Very important. A few years ago, the ATEA network in this parliament set out a very important report on the role of women in fisheries. Many women don't have their status recognized. So their professional status might be recognized, but for example, they may have occupational diseases linked to having worked in water, and that's not properly recognized. So there's work to be done there.
And then there are risks as regards artisanal fishing, and there are significant risks. For example, there's the arrival of macroalgae causing damage, and there are risks such as offshore wind beyond the 12-mile limits. It's important that we protect the coastline. And of course, we may need a wind farm to obtain renewable energy, but not necessarily in the places where we have productive activity going on, and perhaps the only way of life available for many families in that area. They have no alternative.
And then you've all picked up on the fears as regards the reduction of funding under MFA V. Clearly, the commission's proposal is not something that we're happy with in this committee. We're talking about a highly strategic sector. And if it were some other sector of industry or if Germany had the fishery sectors like we have in Galicia and Spain, then it would be a very different tune that we'd be hearing. But actually, what we're looking at is other sectors being protected by the commission.
But when it comes to artisanal fishing and shellfishing, we don't have that level of protection. So there is a call for solidarity with the fishery sector. And then environmental protection, that's something which is very important in all senses. You can't have environmental sustainability unless you have economic and social sustainability. I agree with that.
And that is why, for example, it is so important that the water directive is enforced and that we don't have things happening which cause pollution in production areas. Thank you.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thanks to all the speakers for their presentations here today. And as many of the other speakers have said, it's good to hear, from people who actually fish and, not just people who sit down and talk about it. So I think that's important. It's also to me, it's very important to have a representative of the low-impact fishers of Europe here. And I have to say, I agree with everything you're calling for in terms of support for small-scale fishers.
And if we're going to talk about increased competitiveness in fisheries, we really need to focus on the increased competitiveness in the small-scale fleet, which makes up over 70% of the EU fleet, as you know. They face so many issues and they've been discussed many times in this committee. So how can they be more competitive when they have difficulties accessing funding under MFAS, difficulties that are likely to increase when they have to compete for funding under the new NRPP? And we're looking at a 66% reduction in funding, and that has to be worrying. Also, the question has to be asked is how can they be more competitive when many of them have had to fight for years before they're recognized as a producer organization to represent their interests.
And as you said, Marta, they had to wait five years in Ireland, Imro. And we didn't have our first small-scale producer organization until 2021 as a result of that. This is in a country where 87.5% of the split fleet is small-scale. And even now, five years later, Irish small scale producer organizations are still fighting taxes funding to implement their performance and marketing plans. So how can they be more competitive when they have difficulty accessing valuable quota species?
In Ireland, the small scale fleet over the past three decades has been forced to rely more and more on non-quota species such as shellfish. So to increase the uncompetitiveness of the vast majority of the EU fleet, if we're serious, we need policies that are tailored to this small scale fleet that support low impact fishing and that are actively restoring the marine resources on which the fishing industry depends, such as zones in inshore waters that are reserved for small scale low impact fishing and shorter routes to market where small scale fisheries products can be clearly differentiated and can benefit from a price premium for sustainability. Maybe we should also be asking why the narrow focus on increasing competitiveness instead of being obsessed with competitiveness, like we're not racehorses or greyhounds, we're people who deserve to have lives as well, not just to be stuck in a big competition. We should be looking more holistically at the social, economic, and environmental performance of the different fleet segments. Small scale fishers are the ones who bring the most value to their territories and communities, but who are most often left behind.
This is largely due to a lack of political will and support from member states. The CFP provides the tools for a differentiation approach to small scale fisheries such as article 17. We hear it over and over again, but this requires political courage at a national level. And finally, I just want to say it's also been very informative to hear about the views of the mollusk producers who don't often have the floor in this committee. At a time when everyone speaks about boosting aquaculture in Europe, the right question should be what kind of aquaculture do we want to boost in Europe?
Specific support, in my opinion, should be given to regenerative low trophic aquaculture like shellfish and algae farming, especially to production methods that provide ecosystem services. And just a short question for Mister Adi Risu. In your views, what are the main barriers at the national level for accessing EU funds for shellfish producers that are often small SMEs? What kind of procedure should be simplified, and how can we make sure that member states see this as a priority? And thanks again for your contributions.
It's been really informative. Thank you.
Thank you, chair. I will speak German.
Siegbert Frank Droese
So I'm grateful to the experts and representatives of the industry for their clear explanations, and I can go along with so much of what has been said. This is how we see things, too. And to my Spanish colleague who mentioned Germany, I would like to respond. Of course, we are interested to see how the fishing industry is going and what the technical equipment is. And on behalf of my party, I can see, well, we're currently the strongest party in Germany, and we do take on board the fact that the fisheries industry uses a lot of technical gear, which is made in Germany.
And it is certainly in our interest to ensure that we have a thriving fisheries and aquaculture industry in Europe. So, Ms. Getzi, thank you very much for the quote from Mr. Da Vinci, but what is the current situation for years? The aquaculture sector in Europe has been stagnating.
We've had, I think, 1,100,000 tonnes of relatively stable figure, but not real growth. So the experts have given some reasons which I could go along with. Environmental prerequisites, bureaucracy, limited options to expand, high production costs, a focus on sustainability instead of scaling up. And I think this is one of the main problems that we need to pick up on. There is competition for use of marine surface with offshore wind, and offshore wind has been given precedence over aquaculture.
We can look to what happens in China, for example. China is the world's largest aquaculture producer, and they use their offshore wind areas for dual use. So there, they can have fisheries, and perhaps we ought to think about that. Or we could look to India. They are also tapping into this, and they have strong growth rates.
Obviously, their population means that they have a high demand, but they also have what they call a blue revolution, and they have state funds being made available so that they can safeguard their own food security. And I think it's very hard to understand why it is that in Europe, we are neglecting our own growth. We have real experts with us today. We've heard from them. We have committed producers.
We have high-performing universities that could train up a new generation. We also have consumers who have an awareness of the environmental standards. So, where is the problem? And our political group thinks that the problem is that the commission prefers to prioritize the climate rather than food security. And if you look at the targets for offshore wind, for example, 111 gigawatts by 2030 or even more ambitious targets for 2050.
And then the question is, what are we seeing about production in aquaculture? There's no growth there. Nothing at all, and that is the problem. So we have these stringent environmental standards which are pushing up the business costs in aquaculture, and they are standing in the way of producers' growth, as you said. We think that the targets of the sector should be prioritized differently.
Food security ought to be given the same status as climate and environmental legislation. And I'm coming to a close. I don't think anybody should be satisfied with just having fish made in China. The aim should be to have fish made in Europe, and I hope that the Commission will take that on board. Thank you.
Francisco José Millán Mon
Señor Miyamoto. Mr Miyamoto. Thank you, madam chair. And thank you to all of the speakers. And in particular, I would like to welcome Mister Otero Rodriguez, the president of the Spanish National Federation of Cofradias from my own region of Galicia.
I think it's very important that members and also the commission listen directly to sector representatives from fisheries and aquaculture. I'm grateful for the points that you've raised. I agree with you as regards the need for simplification, and I've often called on the commission to put in place a simplification omnibus for fisheries. They haven't listened at least to date. But I do think that we need an omnibus.
We need these reforms. We need to amend the deepwater regulations, Miss Otero mentioned, in order to exclude deepwater long liners. Article 4.3 from the multi-annual plan for the Mediterranean needs reform. We need to look at some aspects of the control regulation, which have been difficult or impossible to implement, and in particular, it comes to mixed fisheries. And then in addition to the simplification on the bust that we need as soon as possible, we also need a reform of the CFP.
So the commission's evaluation has been published. And from a first view, I think it's rather disappointing. It's unambitious, and I think that we do need reform. This is not just a few teething problems with the implementation. I think we need to change things.
Flexible obligations for landing. And, mister Otero, I'd like to put a question to you. What work is being done on these issues of generational renewal and so on? Artisanal fishing is very important, of course, for my group. We have always wanted to focus in particular on artisanal fishing, on shellfish, and I think we need a more flexible definition, which is not just about the length of a vessel.
We prefer the LICA definition. And then shellfish fishing is very important. In my region of Galicia, a package has been adopted for over €23,000,000 to deal with some of the problems in that sector. And then there's new concepts to be taken on board. For example, more socioeconomic considerations when we're setting tax. And we should also adopt regulations to deal with areas which are highly dependent on fisheries.
There's a lot to do, a lot to put right, a lot to reform, but thanks to all of you for giving us some ideas. And I hope that not only we will take note of this, but also the Commission representatives, because they have a monopoly on the right of legislative initiative in the EU. I hope they are also taking notes of the warnings that you have made. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lupo.
Giuseppe Lupo
Thank you, madam chair. I'd like to thank all the panelists for their contributions. I have a particular question for Miss Getsi. You referred to AgriFish and timelines for the council adoption. You said that a decision was taken in December that fish has only had a couple of weeks' warning in order to change behavior.
What's your suggestion as to how we could change that? What's your proposal? How could we help sustainability of the sector whilst also taking account of the need to plan ahead and ensure that the businesses in the sector are competitive?
Thank.
Ton Diepeveen
Thank you very much, madam chair. I will use my mother tongue, which is Dutch, and I'd like to start by thanking the speakers for their contributions. I can be brief. We've heard a lot of wishes expressed today, and people have pointed their fingers at some well-known problems, things that we're familiar with in this committee, and things that we have already covered a number of times. In particular, for example, the granting of licenses, we know that the procedures are lengthy.
Recently, we have spoken to our Irish colleagues, and there too, they are facing overly lengthy procedures. So we do have some problems when it comes to the regulations in place. We need to deregulate. That is very important, and that is something we can come back to shortly, when we talk to the commissioner. Some of the things that we've heard today are very familiar to us, and we really need to get down to work.
We need to act specifically on these things to show that we take seriously the need to reduce regulation. There are environmental aspects. It's not just about marine protected areas. We also need to think about the impact of industry, about wind farms, which sometimes limit the space available for fisheries. So there can be usage conflicts, and we need to look into that.
I think everybody has come across that issue. And then a question. Why is there such a mismatch between what we need and what actually gets decided, or what we're told is possible? You have set out clearly that there are many rules and regulations imposed on you. So we need to get down to work in order to reduce that regulatory burden, in order to ensure that systems are more effective so that you can do your work with just the fish.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you. We send thank you, Mister Ryson. Thank you very much, madam chair. And thank you to the various speakers for their contributions to this morning's hearing. So what I have learned from your contributions is that there is really an urgent appeal out there, an appeal to come forward with a simplification package.
We need a fisheries omnibus. We need a review of the system. We need to revise the control regulation. We need to look at landing obligations, fisheries techniques, and so on. We have a big problem on our hands, and the problem is that the commission, for the time being, is not showing any will to come forward with a simplification package.
So I'd like to put the following question to the various speakers. What do you think of the evaluation that was carried out last week? That evaluation focused on implementation in member states, but in that evaluation report, there is no mention of the rules which are actually weighing on the sector and which need to be tackled at a European level. And then, next point, you mentioned the importance of crustaceans. There is a lack of a solid framework in this area, and I'd like to know what measures you think are most urgent when it comes to agriculture, in order to ensure that we have a new impetus in that sector.
Do you have proposals which would help reduce the administrative burden there? And then there is the lack of access to funding. Do you have proposals on that? What can we do to ensure that the aquaculture sector is better able to draw on these funds and access funding? Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. The fact to
I'd like to start by thanking all our panelists, our guests today, for their contributions. I think we all feel that this is a very important sector to the European economy. It's very important to food sovereignty, and we have to help it. FAO figures are impressive. We're seeing aquaculture production and fisheries production occur, increasing all around the world, while Europe is going backwards, stagnating or decreasing for aquaculture, and this increases our external dependence.
70% of fishery products consumed as food are imported from outside the EU. So, yes, there's a rapid need for simplification, reduction of administrative burden, and clearer rules. We could have some kind of omnibus, if you want to call it that. But the important thing is we need urgent simplification so that our fissures will not be in a position of unfair competition against what third countries are doing. The rest of the world is increasing.
The EU is not increasing. So we have to look at why. I believe part of the answer is overregulation. That's why we need the simplification. Access to fishing zones, lengthy permitting processes, long administrative complexities.
We've seen this in Cyprus too. Aquaculture is stagnating by global standards. We need multi-annual tax and quotas. We need to look at the need to increase our strategic autonomy, and agriculture will help us do that for food sovereignty. A few questions for our panelists.
Specifically, in relation to the kind of reform of the CFP that the commission will be putting forward, what kind would you like to see? Would you like to see a further-reaching reform? Would you like to do the urgent reform now by the summer, and work on that first? We can work together to improve conditions for the sector and do away with these barriers that are stopping new entrants to the sector too.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Of course, the fish sector and aquaculture is not asking for privileges, but has asked to be heard. Today, we've heard of what the reality is, the difficulties with regulation, and lack of competition. We also agree, in one way or another, the MEPs, on the change that needs to be made in order to allow the sector to survive and thrive. We recognize that reducing the regulatory burden by 25% is needed and 30% for MSMEs, in order to increase competitiveness. That is necessary.
And that goes through the regulatory simplification. That's what we're asking for, because the regulatory framework is too rigid. I think that's the feeling which has been the most important one, which has been produced in this commitment in recent times. And the fleet represents a huge force, and a huge force for sustainability as well. And we've seen that effort that has been made has not had the repercussions required in simplification, and that's what the fishers would like.
Of course, always with a scientific base. And what they would like to see is simplification in the control regulation, especially for small scale and artisanal fishing, at the end of landing obligations, and important changes to distant waters regulations where there are huge losses, and they're having to select some species which are not in difficulty. When it comes to the multi-annual plans and regulation there, it's important to state that the modification could take place in such a way that improves opportunities for sustainability. But right now, we are discussing that within fisheries, and the CFP evaluation confirms this. We do need to make a greater step towards competitiveness and profitability.
We have asked the sector to make great sacrifices, and we now need to show the sector that we can give them transformative tools which allow them to be competitive and, of course, give a future for our young people. We need to think about the future of the sector and the growth of the marine communities. I'd like to thank all of the MEPs for their statements, as well as for the presenters. This hearing has been extremely useful, and I'm now going to just go around the table one more time with four minutes each for them to answer or to reply to anything that they've heard. So we'll first then begin with the president of the Spanish National Federation of Cofferadillas, mister Jose Vecilio Otero Rodriguez.
José Basilio Otero Rodríguez
I will give you four minutes to reply. You have the floor, sir. Thank you very much, Chair. It's quite difficult to reply to everything that I've heard in just four minutes, but I will try to be brief and get to the point. I think to begin, what I'd like to do is leave you with an idea.
You perhaps don't believe, ladies and gentlemen, MEPs, that giving twelve minutes will be enough to hear all the concerns of the sector. We are, of course, very appreciative of the opportunity that we have, but this needs to be done on a periodic basis. It's the second time that I've spoken to this committee, and I think the sector should be listened to more, so that we don't make the same errors time and again. Madame Kalanak. The at the last evaluation of the CFP, the committee told us that we would have to stay on the same path, reducing the size of fleets, reducing catch.
Of course, the less that we catch or the less that we land, the only way to get around that is to import more. So my response, and it's perhaps a response to another question as well, let us not wait for the European sector to be disadvantaged. It is already the case. Of course, we are bound by European rules, but we are not in a very good socio-economic situation. Not at all.
In 2,000 we now see boats coming from Argentina, from Asian countries, and I won't cite them. We all know which ones I mean. They continue to fish here, and we've been they're still doing what we used to do in Europe hundreds of years ago, and I think that's important to raise. Mister Rodriguez, thank you very much for the report you made on Novofempa. I think that asking a fissure to define what the committee should propose isn't really appropriate.
We have expressions which are precisely, perhaps, inappropriate for such an august assembly as the Pesh committee. But in Galicia, we say that it is not for the poor, to make the suggestion. And I, of course, the reduction of some 60% will not, or rather, in the best of our dreams, would be a nightmare for fishers, in fact. If what we want is ships which are equipped for the twenty-first century to decarbonize the fishing sector, I think proposals from the committee are not enough. We do need to empower the proposals with proper financial resources as well.
I understand something very simple here. Trying to explain what the problems of the landing obligation are. Well, one of the speakers, I could ask you, do you know how many species there are in Europe? No. If there is, perhaps a ship which is going to fish a particular species which is not endangered, well, I think a child, if you'll allow me, I don't think even a child would think of this.
It's completely unacceptable. I understand that for a fisher to tell you this, well, it's no smaller than asking for Brexit. This is really what we're talking about. I'll repeat what I said at the beginning, and I do realize I don't have much time left. It is lamentable that there are not two words in English for hear, or hear and listen.
Perhaps we're heard, but we're not being listened to. The regulation needs to listen to us. It needs to hear what we need. And if we want a strong fishing sector in the future, and of course, that's in our interest more than anyone else's, what we need is a quality year end product, and that is only going to happen if the sector will listen to. Thank you very much.
Thank.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
you. Thank you very much, Mr. Otero. Now we'll give the floor to Mr. Risu.
Thank.
Addy Risseeuw
you. Thank you very much, Chair. Now I have received some questions in Dutch, so I will reply in Dutch. Now I was asked why things aren't going the way we would like to see them. Well, it's been 20 years now that aquaculture has been developing at a considerable rate in the European Union, and it's now been 20 years that production levels have been reducing.
And that's one of the reasons that we're asking for an EU policy which is specific to agriculture. There are, of course, the targets of member states, but what we need to see is action. One of the principal problems, and,
Addy Risseeuw
Of course, this is why we see reduced production rather than increased production. It's not, it shouldn't be the case that we're importing 70% of our aquaculture products here. The situation in a number of member states is one of trying to balance the objectives for the environment and those of the economy and aquaculture, on the other hand. There's a mechanism which was used for Natura 2000 to evaluate activities. But here, only the negative elements are concentrated upon. For example, if we think about aquaculture, well, of course, there can be negative aspects.
There are two negative aspects, in fact, but 8 positive ones. But we seem to ignore those eight. We are at least not talking about them as if they do not exist. So in my view, the evaluation mechanism is inapt. Coming then on access to finance, Mister Flanagan, Mister Dippeven, and Mister Rysen raised this.
One of the issues that we're faced with is that there is a subsidy application procedure. I'm afraid I don't know any projects in The Netherlands which are not directed by specialized consultants. They then need to hire accountants, to ensure that the financial obligations are met in some member states. Some member states are betting on large projects with huge budgets, and that makes it more difficult for entrepreneurs because these projects need to be financed upstream. And then 12 months later, perhaps even longer, the money is refunded.
There are, of course, thresholds which are applied, and it's not always simple for the aquaculture sector. Coming then to the evaluation itself, what do we think? Well, we believe that too much importance is being given to the rules, perhaps, and to their implementation rather than thinking about how we could simplify the concept itself of the rules. And that's, I don't think that we're heading down the right path. Thank you.
Elena Ghezzi
Thank you. Mister Lupo asked me a direct question, so I'll take that first. I was talking about timelines for decision-making. This is very important, how decisions are taken and over what timetable they will be applied. So you have an AgroFish in December.
A lot of decisions are taken then. And as I was telling you earlier, they can take effect fifteen days later. That does not help with planning. Companies really need to plan ahead. This is absolutely vital.
What might the solution be? Well, I think there are different ways of looking at this. You could take decisions earlier, for example, in June, which would mean you have to change all your data connection and assessment procedure. Or you could keep it in December, but apply it to the following year with the year's buffer in between. But if you keep sustainability, the three pillars, environmental, social, and economic sustainability, then we need to be bearing in mind all three of those pillars, not one out of three.
A member asked about socioeconomic aspects of the decision and fishery opportunities. When tack and quota decisions are taken, why aren't the relevant flanking measures, compensatory measures decided upon at the same time? Not only those referring to the resources themselves, but also to socioeconomic aspects. Let's say you have a company which is investing in training for sailors and procedures and equipment on board. Why shouldn't that be linked to tax and quota decisions?
There is social dialogue, sectoral dialogue in the EU. They were calling for that in November. You can look a bit further afield if you believe that the sustainability pillar is really three pillars, as I said earlier, three aspects of sustainability. The latest document and the latest assessment of the CFP. Now, yes, this is hot off the press.
It will take time to analyze it, but some things leap out at you from the page. It's a 2013 policy. And, unfortunately, I was there at the time. I've been in the sector for more than 20 years. So I can see that we're still seeing things through 2013's eyes.
I don't think we've taken a leap there. We may have made mistakes with some instruments. Lending obligations have been mentioned by many people. Yes. We believe that lending obligations have not been effective in this instrument.
The assessment says that the state of resources is not yet satisfactory, particularly in relation to certain stocks. So that means it's gone wrong. We did the instruments wrong. I work in the Mediterranean. I carry out a very specific form of fishery.
We have 8,000 kilometers of coastline in my country. How are you going to get this tiny amount of a product which has landed? It'd be very expensive to do this. You couldn't do business like that. And you'd even be having to do checks on what you're fishing, even if it's not for human consumption.
We're still talking about very small sizes, but everything would be, I think, running against the standards very easily there now. So we have to look at what's reasonable. Another key point is that is article 18 of the CFP regionalization. The commission says in its assessment that, yes, this is a useful instrument, but it has slowed down the decision-taking process. Weren't there any other instruments that might have sped up the decision-taking process?
What might an ideal instrument look like? I've had my own experience in this field. We had certain achievements through regionalization, and I think we've achieved things there that we may not otherwise have been able to achieve. And I think this was also, thanks to the advisory councils. A lot of us here in this room will be working in the context of a lot of advisory councils that have provided a lot of assistance to the regionalization process.
And if you want to speed things up, I think you could look at what advisory councils have done and take a leaf from their book. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. One headline.
Renewable energy, very useful, but not at the expense of businesses and people. Don't do this at their expense.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you. And then we'll turn to Mr. Gottavino. So having four minutes,
Ante Gotovina
It is not enough to answer all the questions, but I will start firstly with honorable member Rodriguez's question. So if we had access to policy making mechanisms, we'll surely start with, for the aquaculture sector, reducing protracted processes of obtaining permits such as obligatory environmental impact studies, which can take two to three years to complete, and allow new adaptive rules, modifications which would avoid unnecessary bureaucratic law. Currently, imposed measures do not encourage us as the industry to develop more the concessions due to the reason that any modifications within the concession area require the issuance of new permits that make the repetitive obligatory requirements for us at the aquaculture sector. We have the potential to grow as a sector. This would be the first step as the financial relief for us to reduce unnecessary, high compliance costs.
So, to answer the honorable member Bartolica for the questions regarding lending obligation and the fixed 10% margin tolerance. So this is the perfect example that when it comes to creating a gap between the policy design and the practical implementation, at sea, it is very difficult to estimate and to not deviating from 10% in terms of the percentages by the size and mixed catches. That leads to unintentional administrative violations and results in high unnecessary financial cost penalties, further lowering the profitability of our fishing vessels. And to answer the question regarding the EU regulation 2024/809/97, financial relief. We welcome that financial relief.
However, the limited quantity is still not enough for us to enhance the cost efficiency of our fisheries product in order to develop the more serious market for the bluefin tuna in the EU. Therefore, we call for the increase of the limited quantity up to 200 tons and the removing of daily quantity limits. In that case, that will ensure us as the industry to offer more competitive prices and to have good support, and that would give us an advantage in comparison with our third country competitors.
Gracias.
Thank you very much.
Marta Cavallé
Thank you. Thank you for the word, again. I would coincide with Vasili that there's a need for this periodic kind of review with the sector, and I think it's nice to see that we can speak here. I think it's the first time that life has been called for this camera, so thank you for that. I want to ask no.
I want to answer to you, Kalenic, saying whether it was MS, the member state, or EU, the post the thing. I think it's a bit of both. I think it's first, MS member states don't.
Marta Cavallé
The political will to change things to support the competitiveness of small-scale fisheries. But at the same time, there's the EU not pushing enough for implementing articles that are there in their CFP. And I'm talking about article 17, for example. We it took, like, ten years to have that it says very good things. It says also it recognizes that it needs to be implemented in the spirit of the law, but still now what we will have with that.
So whether reforming or not, what is the answer? I'm not sure. I mean, of course, there's margin of improvement of the current CFP with many aspects. But at the same time, we have an urgent situation. And I don't know if we have the time to go through a full revision that maybe would take ten years until it arrives into the sector.
We don't have time for that. We know our sector says that in five years, we might be reduced to postcard picture, and so we don't have time to lose for that. What we want is action now, and now is now. So what we are proposing is that we use the current framework, and we use the Ocean Act as a tool as well to empower small-scale fisheries and strengthen the mandates and strengthen what is in the CFP already. We want for this binding plan of action, so we finally have the member states to make action on small scale fisheries.
We want, through the Ocean Act, to have a regenerative fisher area, operationalize article 17, etcetera. And I think we have this in the right to the table where we can work with. Otherwise, we will be maybe too late. And about the omnibus, it's just a question for everybody else. What is the omnibus exactly?
I mean, is that meaning that we are just dismissing the democratic procedures that we have in place? Does that mean that we just will overpass this camera, or this will overpass our democratic system? I'm not sure if this is the right way. Of course, we will need action, but maybe we need to do it in the right way. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Now I'll give the floor to the representative of DG Mare, madam Marta Yanakakis, who's with us for five minutes, please.
Marta Yanakakis
Thank you. Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss these very important issues we had this morning. Enhancing competitiveness and reducing the administrative burden are central priorities in the commission's agenda. Moreover, they are very critical for the fisheries and aquaculture sector. We fully recognize the scale of complexity and challenges that the sector is facing today.
So I would like to just briefly report to you on what we actually do in the commission and in DG Mare, because it seems that sometimes it's not so visible what we do, but we are working on the simplification and addressing the issue of reducing administrative burden. The first thing that we have just published, communication from the commission on a simpler, clearer, and better enforced EU real book. Thus, this initiative sets out a comprehensive approach to modernizing the EU lawmaking to ensure that the legislation is clear, less burdensome, more effectively enforced, and grounded in robust evidence, better aligned with the needs of citizens and businesses. At DG Mara, to address this, we are doing the following actions. You might know that we have two relatively new instruments implemented in the commission actions.
One is the high level implementation dialogues. Last year, we organized two such implementation dialogues. One was discussing the maritime spatial planning directive, and the other was dedicated to small scale coastal fisheries. Following this path for 2026, we are organizing one on aquaculture, and the second one will be dedicated to generational renewal and the challenges to that. Further to organizing these implementation dialogues, we are working on analyzing and having a thorough follow-up of the conclusions of these high-level implementation dialogues.
Another novelty that we have been preparing and working behind the scenes, and we will start doing, is the so-called reality checks where we are to go on the practitioners on the ground and ask their experiences, their main issues, both negative and if there is some positive as well, to bring back and try to also address in the context of simplification. This we will do in a series of workshops, namely 18, where we gather the practitioners of the member states based on linguistic limitations, sea basins, member states, and also the activities that they are covering such as fisheries, aquaculture, post landing activities like retail or even processing. Another overarching priority and task that we are delivering and doing now in DG MARA is the stress testing of the whole mariculture. This means that we have to take a critical look at the existing legislative burdens and check, in the context of the simplification agenda of the commission, that this regulatory framework remains relevant, proportionate, and efficient in achieving its goals. This means that we systematically review the whole stock of EU law, and we look at the overall impact of the loo of the laws.
At Mare, we established last year our multi-annual plan for stress testing, which covers the period of 2025 to 2029. And during this period, we will see each piece of MARE legislation and see where we can simplify. Then you know that we are also, since last year, creating and reporting to the parliament and the council on our annual progress report on simplification, implementation, and in. We have started working on the next annual report, which will cover the period 08/21/2025 until 07/31/2026. And I would like to draw attention to a simplification study that we started. This is a very complex and very ambitious study to its goals, which covers basically three main issues, how we would like to address and see the administrative burden in the fisheries and aquaculture and postlanding sector.
It has three parts. The first part will be the assessment and delivering a specific cost analysis of the control regulation and also put it into the perspective of the revision of the control regulation and the step-by-step implementation and entry into force of the revised measures. A second, very complex cost analysis will be based on surveys of a wide range of involvement of the sector, to see the cost analysis from the business operator's perspective and perception. So we would like to identify and map the cost of fisheries and aquaculture-related stakeholder groups in relation to their daily businesses, which means that we would like to put it in a perspective and in the system to see what is in the legislation under fisheries, what is in legislation under European law or national or regional rules as well. And the third part of the simplification study is what I already mentioned, the delivery of the 18 reality checks, where we will gather and invite practitioners from the member states here into Brussels to have a nice and animated workshop.
And then finally, I would just like to say a few words about the crisis mechanism that we have delivered. This is more in the cons concept and the context of the competitiveness and not simplification that we have triggered a crisis support mechanism under MFF by recognizing an exceptional event causing significant market disruptions. In addition, we adopted a temporary state framework to enable member states to support specific sectors in the economy, in the Middle East crisis. The name is the Middle East crisis temporary stated framework. And finally, the commission also has put forward the Accelerate EU initiative to help alleviate the situation, by accelerating access to affordable, secure energy for businesses and consumers.
And then, I would like to give the floor to my colleague, Lorea. She can go more into depth on aquaculture related issues. Thank you.
Lorea
Yes. I will not be very long because, in fact, this afternoon, I had the opportunity to present to you the results of the midterm assessment of the implementation of the EU aquaculture strategy. So, but just to mention that, well, in fact, this mid-term assessment has been one of the main sources of information for the evaluation of the CFP regulation. The evaluation will be presented by our commissioner here to you, so we will not dwell on the results. But just to say that, indeed, we are aware that one long-standing problem for the growth of the agricultural sector in the EU is administrative burden and the regulatory framework.
We have taken some steps within the framework of the CFP regulation to try to facilitate that this issue is solved. Notably, in 2024 already, we adopted a commission staff working document proposing the recommendations and concrete good practices for member states to address this issue. Course, it's something that depends very much on the member state action, and it's true that our perception is that aquaculture is still not seen in many member states as a priority sector, which is something that blocks progress. But I stop here just to mention this, that the issue is well-known. We have been working on it.
There has been some progress, but it's still not sufficient, and we are aware of it. Thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you very much. Ms. Lekelenec, very briefly. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for the answers to the representatives of the commission.
Isabelle Le Callennec
You will appreciate that we're not satisfied with that. We've heard the same accounts of the reality, but we're not drawing the same conclusions. You've said it's urgent, but we can't wait any longer. I'm hearing the same complaints, but we're told, oh, there'll be dialogue. There'll be workshops.
There'll be field visits. But we've just heard what needs to be done. It's not that hard. There are regulatory aspects to it. Make the changes to the texts.
And I'm rather alarmed that you're saying we're going to look at all the legislation to see what can be simplified, and you're talking about 2025 to 2029. So no changes until we've completed that evaluation. Is that right? Because if so, that would be highly worrying. We're evaluating the common fisheries policy.
We're evaluating MFAAF, and we know what needs to be done. I've been in this committee since June 24. I just can't see why we can't be more practical. We know what needs to be done. Why can't it be done?
Would just replay the recording of what you've said, and we hope that this can be done for fisheries and for aquaculture. Because, to quote your own words, we'll just carry on importing products that don't respect our social standards or our environmental standards, and we'll be consuming more and more imported produce when we have the most virtuous production in the world. So this is my plea to you. This is nothing personal to you, but I'm afraid we're not satisfied with that response. Thank you, Miss Lekelenik.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
That brings our hearing to a close, leaving us wanting more, of course. Thank you very much. Thank you for addressing the members of the European Parliament. Thank you for coming. Thank you for all your contributions.
I hope you'll continue to make such contributions, and we'll now bid you farewell so that we can continue with our business. Right. Could we move on now quickly to our consideration of a draft opinion? We don't have much time. We're looking at establishing a budget, expenditure tracking, and performance framework, and other horizontal rules for the union programs and activities.
You will recall that this draft opinion has Isabella Kalanick as the rapporteur. The budget committee is responsible. 05/12/2026. Twelve noon is the deadline for tabling amendments. Miss Kalanek, you have five minutes, and then we'll give the floor to the shadows for 2 minutes each.
And then we'll hear from Budge for two minutes each, and then we'll hear from Digimare for three minutes. So please be brief. We don't have much time. Miss, you have five minutes.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Madam la présidente. Thank you.
Madam Chair. So on paper, what this says is that parliament will track budget expenditure and performance, but it's highly technocratic. You know what happens in fisheries. There's a big difference between markets, climate change, geopolitical considerations, unfair competition, fishes operating in an unstable and demanding environment. That's what's going on.
So what we actually need to do is simplify and support, make people's lives easier, not harder. So what we need to do here is improve accessibility to funds for final beneficiaries, strengthen the competitiveness of the sector, and allow for a more effective use of resources without generating any additional administrative burden. We've just had a debate on simplification. And if the panelists we've just heard from can see this report, I think they would shudder in dread. Looking at operational aspects, we need to be tangible, not introducing new abstract, disconnected from reality provisions.
We need to put our performance framework on a competitive footing. We should not be causing significant harm. Do no significant harm. That's the motto, and it's particularly important for fisheries because there's already a straitjacket from the common fisheries policy. There are already extremely stringent environmental requirements, as we've already heard this morning.
Adding to those rules would bring no added value or just create an unnecessary administrative burden and unfair competition between different fisheries sectors, gender equality. Of course, we support the objective, but we need to do it in a pragmatic way. The sector's finding generational renewal a huge challenge. People are leaving the sector anyway. So if we're over rigid there, we could be excluded from projects that would be environmentally and socially relevant.
We need to have a coherent, consistent text. We need to look at the regulation and annex 1. You have to read them all to ensure that there are no differences in interpretation. Look at it from a beneficiary's perspective, looking at the climate priorities and the environmental objectives, we need more clarity, in my view. We should bring the mitigation, adaptation, and resilience factors into one coherent approach, which would make it simpler and more effective.
Finally, the European Parliament's role as co-legislator should be at the forefront here. It's a very important text, so we should not have a multitude of delegated acts or guidelines that circumvent the democratic process. Fisheries is a sector like no other. It is strategic, and our food security depends on it. I'm eager to hear the proposed amendments from colleagues.
Thank you.
Thank.
You, Mister Sergio Comeau.
Thank you.
Eric Sargiacomo
Very much, madam chair. Thank you very much, madam rapporteur, Miss Isabel Lekelenig. Thank you for the work you've done. It's technical. You said it's technocratic.
I note that. But it is highly political too, in terms of its consequences. Systematic references to delegated acts and guidelines. When we've already got a plethora of different omnibuses, I think this is not reasonable. Substantial changes should go through the council and parliament.
Otherwise, what's the point in having co legislators? Maybe we're surplus to requirements, and the treaty should be rewritten. Our outermost regions are particularly relevant to fisheries, as is food security. When it comes to reorganizing the annex, I'm more skeptical. Yes. Coherence is good, but we need to look at competitiveness, what the advantages of competitiveness are.
We may never be competitive against debt imports if we're not applying the same social, environmental, and economic criteria which we're imposing upon our own fish. Systematic removal of the do no significant harm principle. It was an EPP commissioner, Dombrovskys, who proposed this in the taxonomy regulation in 2018. But the EPP seems to systematically want to do away with this despite its original support for the Dombrovsky's proposal. You wanted minimal inclusion.
It's as if the EPP has erased its memory of the past here. Social cohesion, territories, and fair transition need to be given more prominence here. Thank you, mister. And. Thank you, madam chair.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you, madam, for the work which has been done. Excellent work has been done. There are good proposals here on changing indicators. There are useful amendments here. I'm thinking particularly of '64, for example.
There are commission proposals about eliminating certain vessels, and there is an amendment that really gives voice to the sector's view, and looks at the practical way of achieving generational renewal. So we welcome that. As to democratic legitimacy and participation by the European Parliament, what I am concerned about here is that as a parliament, we can set in indicators, but the main objectives and milestones are determined by the commission in an implementing act. This means that the commission is setting tax, if I understand this correctly, and parliament doesn't have a say on that, if I've got that right. If you're talking about a democratic deficit, perhaps we should give some thought to it.
Because my way of looking at that is that we're putting all the power in the commission's hands to set the targets. So I think that needs a rethink. The do no significant harm principle is being removed. Well, as I have had the opportunity to say previously, if you don't have the principle, you have a lot of legal uncertainty. It's not clear what the procedure should be.
So there may be good intentions behind the principle, but I think there's a danger of over complex legislation. As for gender equality, I agree that we should try to achieve something realistic there. The rapporteur has brought in certain nuances there, which I would support. We have specific proposals for amendments. But so far, I'll say congratulations on the work you've done.
Emma Ytterell
Thank you so much, Cher, and thanks to the rapporteur for the work on this file. It's very interesting. We're currently working on our amendments on behalf of Renew, and we will focus on two things, namely usefulness and clarity. The performance regulation is supposed to help us track how EU taxpayers' money is spent. And therefore, it's important to have a framework that can convey our objectives and help us understand if the money has the intended effect.
This is why we would like to see better tracking of where the funding goes within our fleet segments, and within the supply chain. That includes funding allocated also for the small-scale actors. The commission's proposal can be improved. And to make it clearer and less legally uncertain, that's where we will focus on our amendments. The MFF study that will be presented later today tells us the same thing, and we will therefore seek to increase the predictability for actors as affected, while maintaining the core principles of the text.
Lastly, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the interesting idea of including monitoring on competitiveness as you have proposed in your draft report, and we will be looking into it, and are happy to explore what this could mean in practice. Tracking and monitoring where taxpayers' money is spent and how useful those funds have been is important. And as PESH committee, we must ensure that those align with the objectives set out by the CFP and other relevant legislation for this committee. We look forward to work with the rapporteur and the shadows on this file. And I'm so sorry that I have to run to another meeting, but we will ensure to listen also to the response from the rapporteur, afterwards.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you. Thank.
You, Madam Chair. Yes, on behalf of the shadows of the Green, Rasmus Nulquist, I will share our view on this report and on this regulation. So thank you so much to Madame Lerkelenic, the rapporteur. For us, it's extremely important to be able to track every euro in the next MFF, and to evaluate and have accountability. So we have three priorities that stand out.
First, climate and environment spending target, where we need to increase the ambition. I think it's relevant also in this committee to recognize that without healthy ecosystems and thriving biodiversity, we will not have a thriving fishing sector, or increased catches, or food security. So we want to raise the target from 35% to 50% of the entire budget and ring-fence at least 10% for biodiversity to protect our commitments to stop biodiversity loss and instead rebuild ecosystems and fish stocks. Where progress to reach these targets is not good enough, the Commission should propose corrective measures without delay and not just consult. Secondly, the do no significant harm principle.
It must have teeth. We propose a clear deadline for the Commission's guidance, aligned with the entry into force of the MFF regulation. And this guidance must identify activities that significantly harm the environment and make them explicitly ineligible for EU funding. We should limit the do-no-significant-harm exemptions to genuine emergencies, natural catastrophes, and armed conflicts. And on defense and security, we need to delete the blanket exemption for defense and security.
Public money should never undermine our environmental laws. Thirdly, transparency, accountability, and tracking. We suggest adding a dedicated biodiversity column to Annex one so every euro can be tracked for its biodiversity contribution alongside climate and environment. The single gateway should be set up within three months of entry into force, and be continuously updated for real-time public scrutiny. Member States should be asked to do their interim evaluations earlier than three years into project implementation.
We think they should be done before the MFF mid-term revision. And based on these evaluations, member states should be required to take corrective action, not just submit their observations. To us, these amendments would ensure that the next I'm conclude. I'm done. That we have what we have promised our citizens on climate, on nature, and on the transparent use of public money.
Thank you, madam chair.
Gracias, señor Flann.
Thank you. Mister Flannigan.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thanks to the rapporteur for your draft opinion on this regulation. The European Court of Auditors has already correctly raised concerns about many aspects of this regulation, including the lack of a clear link between funding and results, a lack of input impact result indicators, weak methodologies for setting baselines and targets, and the lack of a clear framework to track how funds will be allocated and used. So I think we need to address these concerns to ensure that we have a performance regulation that follows best practice, especially given the importance of meeting the environmental, climate, and social targets. Targets. Some of the intervention fields, in my opinion, are very broad, and it's unclear how exactly they will contribute to indicated percentages in Annex one.
There's also a need for output and result indicators that better reflect support for small-scale fishers. I noticed that the repertoire has suggested that the do no significant harm principle shouldn't apply to fisheries, and I cannot agree with this exempting fisheries from the do no significant harm principle. Together with your call for a horizontal principle to monitor the integration of competitiveness, wouldn't, in my opinion, align with the conservation objectives of the CFP and would interfere with the balancing of its core objectives of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. In addition, the do no significant harm principle is an overarching principle that guides the way public money should be spent. Public money should be spent for the public good and will not help thriving fisheries to have MTCs. If every sector starts requesting specific exemptions for overarching horizontal principles, this defeats the purpose of the horizontal nature of these principles.
I can't agree with the proposal for specific sector rules for the application of the gender equality principle, which is not just about gender balance between men and women in terms of numbers. It's fundamentally about equality of treatment, and this has the potential to address the important issue of invisibility of women in fisheries, many of whom carry out unpaid and unrecognized labor every day without which the fishing industry couldn't exist. I do agree with the repertoire that food self-sufficiency is important. I would, however, prefer to call for food sovereignty rather than food security, as the focus is quite different. Food sovereignty has much more local focus on a sustainable localized food system.
This makes food sovereignty an important tool to improve self-sufficiency through localized food systems, which provide social and economic benefits for small-scale fishers. And I just have a quick question for the commission about the 35% climate and environmental overarching target. How can we make sure this target is sufficient to address the triple planetary crisis? And also, there's no dedicated target for biodiversity. In this context, how can we ensure that member states will allocate money to conserve and restore marine biological resources in line with the CFP conservation objectives?
I'll be submitting amendments before next week's deadline, and I look forward to working with the reporter on this regulation. Thank you.
Francisco José Millán Mon
Thank you. Mister.
Thank you, chair. Very briefly, I welcome the report. Thank you, Miss Lakalanek. I think this is excellent. I think it's good to get rid of the principle of "do no significant harm."
I think it's unnecessary, as I said previously. Also, we have commissioned guidelines on that that just create uncertainty, and I fear that many fisheries activities would thereby fall outside the eligibility for EU funding. I think we as co-legislators should be with our hands on the wheel in terms of how we define the different concepts. Competitiveness in the second underlying commission is a priority, and I'm pleased to see it in the macro-financial framework. We need to be careful here to ensure that we're not creating additional administrative burdens, because fishers are fed up.
Thanks. Thank.
Niclas Herbst
Thank you, madam chair. This is not just a technical file. It's highly political, as has been mentioned. That is definitely not only a complex file, but it's the most horizontal file, next to the MFF regulation itself. And therefore, we are in the situation that my co, Robert Ture, Jean Marc Germain, and myself, we are currently not only talking to stakeholders, but, of course, also to the specialized committees.
And please bear in mind that your opinion is not just an opinion. I mean, we all know how this works in parliament. Sometimes opinions are not really cherished by the leading committees. But especially in the situation where we don't have maybe an overall agreement on the proposal itself, your opinion becomes extremely important. That is why I'm really grateful for this opinion.
And I also would like to welcome that the rapporteur really focuses on the simplification and also reducing the administrative burden for beneficiaries, especially of New Yorkers' fishing operators. And we also take note of the emphasis placed on competitiveness, resilience, and food security. This is the overall meaning of the whole operation. We should always bear in mind this, and the horizontal principles have been mentioned. I strongly believe that they should be implemented in a manner that is feasible and appropriate in light of the secured sector specific realities.
And you can imagine, we have very different realities from development policy, I don't know, gender policy, and everything else, very specific needs. And this also, the fishery sector has specific needs. And so I believe that all proposed changes should remain realistically applicable and proportionate, because that's the only way how we can ensure the implementation requirements do not create unnecessary burdens or reduce access to funding. As also has been mentioned, we have to take note of the concerns expressed regarding the use of delegated acts and the importance of ensuring that the full involvement of Parliament as co-legislator in shaping the framework is also secured. It is important that the overall framework remains coherent, streamlined, and focused on measurable performance.
And I'm really worried if this is really a coherent proposal, and we do have a lot of issues. Also, from a different perspective, my co-operator from the budget committee, he's also aware of the many problems that we are facing, and we're really looking forward to your opinion.
Thank you.
Very much for the work.
Marta Yanakakis
Yes. Sorry. Thank you, chair, and thank you to the rapporteur for the opinion and the interventions of the various members. I think we all agree that every euro needs to be spent, needs to be relevant and needs to be impactful, and, therefore, we need to be able to track the performance of the budget in a proper manner. This is why we have this proposal, which the commission proposed to enhance, to make simpler, to make more consistent the performance framework enabling the horizontal principles, which were mentioned here.
Climate and environment do not significantly harm gender equality, etc. We believe that this single performance regulation will deliver harmonization across MFF program programs, moving away from a program-based approach to an activity-based approach. In our view, it will deliver increased transparency. It will increase accountability, and it will increase the consistency of accountancy of performance information provided by our relevant partners. And it through the single framework, in our view, it will reduce administrative burden.
Just wanted to add that, with regard to the policies which matter to us, fisheries and maritime policies, that what we have proposed in the performance framework is very similar to what exists under the MFAV program, today. Finally, of course, it's important to note that the performance regulation further operationalizes the requirements of the 24th recast financial regulation. Now coming back to some of the issues which were raised by the rapporteur and some of the members here. They do not significantly harden principle to start with. It's a requirement which stems from our financial regulation, which provides that the EU budget must be implemented in compliance.
The idea of this proposed horizontal DNSH approach is to ensure a level playing field across all the spending programs and to prevent distortion, to prevent confusion that could arise from doing otherwise. The technical guidance that we have suggested will be designed to build directly upon EU legislation, CFP, of course, being one of them, to avoid the creation of a parallel system. So the commission intention is to draw extensively from that existing rules so that where current legislation is sufficient, no additional criteria or lengthy justifications will be required. In this regard, it's important to note the principle of the compliance by default, which we intend to further develop in this guidance. There were some members calling on a competitiveness tracking.
What we suggested to track, of course, is set out in the financial regulation, which specifically calls for tracking of climate change, environment, gender equality, amongst. Okay. I will. On the delegated acts, we believe that they are intended to introduce only targeted, technical, justifications, and we believe they are necessary. And this applies to the gender data as well, as was referred to. I will conclude here, chair, and, of course, we are open for any further questions if need be.
Thank.
Isabelle Le Callennec
thank you very much. So I think our first issue is going to be the MFF budget. We were told 2,000,000,000, and we are calling for an increase in that budget to 7,000,000,000. And I agree with what has been said. Every euro must be spent properly, and we must ensure that we have the right criteria in place before we look at control, and that's something that we'll have to work on.
The performance regulation is indeed highly political. There are many areas of agreement, and that is helpful. Thank you very much for all your comments, which I've taken note of. And it's not surprising that the do no significant harm principle is controversial. I think it is something which is highly subjective, and it could undermine or delay projects.
I know that it is already in place, but I think the approach should be to stick to a definition of sustainable development and have those three pillars: economic, social, and environmental. None of those is a priority over the others. And I think we also need to look at the percentages in Annex 1, and we need to look at whether or not they are relevant. But I am grateful to you for the work that we will be doing in the near future with our staff. And I'd also like to thank the commission in advance for taking that on board.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you. So thank you very much for being brief, and thank you to the interpreters, says the speaker, for staying with us, and thanks to the other members of the committee. And we will be back here at 2:30. Thank you very much for your work.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.