Brussels, 19/09/2013 (Agence Europe) - A debate on the report by Kriton Arsenis (S&D, Greece) supporting the phase-out, over two years, of the use of bottom trawls in the North East Atlantic once more revealed profound divisions among MEPs belonging to the European Parliament fisheries committee. MEPs are determined to reach a compromise but it looks as though reaching agreement will prove an arduous task. The fisheries committee is to vote on 3 October and the plenary vote is scheduled for December.
According to Arsenis, 345 amendments were submitted to the Commission's proposal, with a whole range of opinions on the matter. He said they were seeking to reach a compromise among shadow rapporteurs on the sensitive issues in Article 9 (ban on deep sea trawling). In his view, there is an agreement on gradually phasing out bottom trawling but this opinion is not shared by French and Spanish MEPs (except those in the Greens/EFA Group), who are the most concerned by fishing of deep-sea species (black scabbardfish, roundnose grenadier, ling, etc.).
Struan Stevenson (ECR, UK) underlined that catches of these deep sea species has fallen by half (from 70,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes) and that, for some major species, biomass is improving, scientists say. Replacement of trawling by longliner fishing (proposed by the Commission and the rapporteur) would not resolve the problem, especially as it entails by-catches of sharks. “If we go ahead and ban all deepwater trawling, how are fishermen supposed to sell the trawlers that are designed for such fisheries, which would be forbidden in the whole of Europe?” said Stevenson, going on to add that there would be no outlet for such ships and they could not be transformed into longliners. Article 9 is equivalent to a ban after two years. Until that aspect is resolved, he concluded, he cannot see where they are heading.
Carmen Fraga (EPP, Spain), shadow rapporteur, is against phasing out deep sea trawling, saying the point is “not negotiable”. She criticised what she called a “radical proposal, not very balanced” by the European Commission and upheld by the rapporteur. Isabelle Thomas (S&D, France) was of the view that '”there is no compromise on the phasing out of trawling”. As she sees it, the only possible compromise concerns a “partial ban, that is, by geographical zones and not in all deep waters”. She recommends a zone-by-zone ban, on the basis of an ecological footprint and cartography. Vulnerable marine depths must be protected, she conceded, explaining, however, that there are sedimentary depths that are not vulnerable and where fishing could continue.
Alain Cadec (EPP, France) is not over optimistic about the chances of reaching a compromise. He backed the ideas floated by Isabelle Thomas: freezing the fishing footprint, banning deep sea trawling and also gillnetting outside restricted areas. Fishermen may act in the area already used for fishing and “recovery areas” will be created for deep sea fishing, he said. “This is the best compromise that can be found”, he believes. On the other hand, a ban advocated by the Commission, is, Cadec feels, “unacceptable and counter-productive” and would “endanger the future of trawling which, on our coasts, is one of the most practised methods of fishing”.
MEPs from the Greens/EFA Group supported the Commission's proposal. Raul Romeva (Greens/EFA, Spain) spoke of the “bad situation of the deep-sea fish stocks”. He insisted on obtaining the proposed phase-out of bottom trawling and gillnetting, but underlined that his group could show flexibility on the definition of the depth of fishing activities deemed to target deep-sea species as a way of coming to a compromise.
Ulrike Rodust (S&D, Germany) said that “scientists admit that a lot is still unknown about the deep-sea environment” but that MEPs had a “responsibility towards future generations” and advocated the precautionary approach, favouring the ban. (LC/transl.jl)