EU fisheries ministers, meeting in Brussels on Thursday 11 May, reached a political agreement in principle (“general approach”) on a compromise text on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems by means of technical measures (see EUROPE 11785).
The text, much to the chagrin of the Netherlands, keeps in place the ban (with a derogation) on pulse trawling (or electrofishing), where electric pulses are emitted to help catch the fish.
The Netherlands and Denmark voted against the technical measures text, which will serve as the mandate for the incoming Council Presidency to open negotiations on technical measures with the European Parliament in the autumn. Germany indicated that it abstained.
Differences over electrofishing. The Netherlands would have liked electrofishing to have been approved without any restrictions by the text. Several countries, however, argued for the ban on this type of fishing to remain in place. The French delegation called for the current rules on electrofishing to be “maintained”. “In the absence of positive scientific opinion, this activity must remain prohibited and authorised experiments must remain strictly controlled”, stated the French representative.
The Netherlands expressed regret that the text did “not legalise” electrofishing before the results of more in-depth studies are known, in 2020. Secretary of State Martijn Van Dam argued that this gear is more selective, does less damage to the seabed and allows less fuel to be used. Belgium called for a pilot project and for monitoring of pulse trawling.
The current regulation (850/1998) grants a derogation to fishing with beam trawls using electrical pulse current in certain areas of the southern North Sea (south of a line linking the United Kingdom and Denmark), subject to conditions (only up to 5% of the beam trawler fleet of each EU country). The Commission proposed keeping the geographical restrictions in place but relaxing the 5% rule. This latter proposal has not at this stage been accepted by the Council.
Problem for Denmark. Denmark regretted that the text did not resolve the issue over the requirement to record in the logbook every species caught and retained in bulk by vessels. This is a difficulty that particularly concerns pelagic species and industrial fishing. Danish minister Esben Lunde Larsen said that a solution had been found in the multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea “and it’s not logical to have different rules depending on the waters that are being fished”. The Commission supported the call to find a solution to the Danish problem.
Spain satisfied. The Spanish minister, Isabel Garcia Tejerina welcomed the compromise text agreed, “a good starting point for negotiations with the Parliament”. “We must pursue traditional activities and fishermen must continue to use the gear currently in use”, she stated. France welcomed the agreed definition of targeted fishing (based on the criterion of volume of species caught per trip rather than turnover). Lastly, the French delegation called for measures to protect cetaceans and sea birds to be strengthened in order to reduce incidental catches of these species to the minimum. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)