Brussels, 07/04/2015 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament fisheries committee could put the controversial proposal banning driftnets to the vote on Tuesday 14 April. On Tuesday 7 April, however, it debated alternatives to this method of fishing.
Italian researcher Antonello Sala presented a study on alternative solutions to driftnet fisheries. He identified 45 active driftnet fisheries in nine EU member states (Bulgaria, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and UK). Together they account for around 3,640 vessels, most of which are small (10-12 metres). Over 20 different species are caught using this method of fishing. Sala detailed some highly technical features (thickness of twine, mesh size, and more) demonstrating the different selectivity of nets. “Mesh size varies with the size of the species targeted”, he stated. He argued that the European ban on “large-scale” driftnets (over 2.5 kilometres in length) should be maintained. “However, enforcement of the legislation has not stopped the expansion of large-scale pelagic driftnets. Furthermore, the definition of 'driftnet' in the 2007 regulation is not specific enough”.
Policy options. Sala set out the four possible options: 1) maintaining the status quo; 2) technical measures (twine thickness, mesh size, etc.); 3) a selective EU ban of the driftnet fisheries where the risk is highest of damaging protected species; 4) a blanket ban on driftnet fisheries. The researcher's preference is for a combination of options 2 and 3. He stressed that driftnets were “very selective” compared with other, so-called “active” types of gear.
Technical measures. Responding to questions from Marco Affronte (EFDD, Italy), Sala said that a major part of the problem could be resolved through technical measures, for example, with regard to the mesh of the nets. “Work could be done on technical measures and on a selective ban on driftnets to spare protected species”, he stated, acknowledging that further studies would be needed on the impact of driftnets. He felt the definition of “driftnet” contained in the initial proposal by the European Commission was adequate.
He indicated, in response to a question from rapporteur Renata Briano (S&D, Italy), that Italian law set the maximum mesh size at 100 millimetres. “But this is a mesh so wide that sometimes it isn't needed if one considers the smaller species, such as anchovy and sardine. In addition, it could give fishermen an excuse for catching unauthorised species if they argue that they are using that mesh size”, he pointed out. He went on: “Account has to be taken of several parameters: maximum mesh size, maximum diameter, the length of the net and the single net rule. With these solutions, we could resolve most of the problems to be found in Europe”. He confirmed that there was a lack of data on catches of protected species. While it would be difficult to monitor all small vessels, “the problem could be solved by putting a limit on the number of landing ports and monitoring landings”, he said.
Francisco José Millan Mon (EPP, Spain) welcomed Sala's “realistic and reasonable” vision, compared with the European Commission's stark proposal of a ban on all driftnets.
A draft amendment put down by Gabriel Mato, Francisco José Millan Mon, Carlos Iturgaiz, Veronica Lope Fontagné, Alain Cadec, Claudia Monteiro de Aguiar, Remo Sernagiotto, Werner Kuhn, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Jens Gieseke and Andrej Plenkovic calls for the Commission's initial proposal to be rejected. “While the use of driftnets has to be regulated, the current European Commission proposal has no scientific basis and could endanger small-scale fishing in which driftnets are used sustainably”, these MEPs argue. They call on the Commission to undertake a “serious” scientific study on the environmental impact of driftnets on marine resources, in particular protected and endangered species. The Commission should also assess the social and economic impact of a ban of this sort, “as the proposal does not comply with the proportionality principle”, in the MEPs' view (our translation throughout). (Lionel Changeur)