Following his participation in the informal meeting of EU fisheries ministers held on 5 May in Nicosia, European Commissioner for Fisheries and Oceans Costas Kadis gave an interview on 6 May to Agence Europe on the forthcoming reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). We are publishing the interview in two parts. (Interview conducted in Nicosia by Lionel Changeur).
Agence Europe - Yesterday, the main topic among EU Member States was the state of play of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), and you presented an evaluation report. My first question is: what are the main conclusions of the Commission’s evaluation of the CFP? And how did Member States react to this evaluation during yesterday’s meeting?
Costas Kadis - The main takeaway is that the CFP regulation has made clear progress in reducing overfishing, as well as in strengthening knowledge and governance through improved data collection and scientific advice.
This progress is measurable. For example, the percentage of fish stocks managed at sustainable levels increased from 50% in 2014 to 63% in 2022.
However, the key question is whether this progress is sufficient. The answer is no. We would like to see further improvements, particularly in maintaining and restoring fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY) across the board.
So while progress has been made, the evaluation also identified inefficiencies and gaps.
Regarding Member States’ reactions: all of them welcomed the evaluation results and expressed positive views about the process. They emphasized that the report provides a solid basis for informed decision-making.
Several key themes were raised by ministers: The need for simplification of procedures; Fleet modernization and decarbonization; Making the sector more attractive to ensure generational renewal; Additional support for small-scale and coastal fishers, who are more vulnerable; Concerns about the lack of a level playing field between EU operators and those from third countries.
These were the dominant topics. However, most ministers also noted that they need more time to fully assess the report. A more in-depth discussion will take place at the June Agri-Fish Council.
Do you have an idea of when you will propose modifications to the legislation? And are you considering an omnibus proposal, as requested for example by France?
I cannot pre-empt the scope of a potential revision. We will first discuss next steps with Member States, the sector, and all stakeholders.
However, the topics I mentioned will certainly be part of future discussions, including on the possibility of a targeted revision.
We will now engage in more extensive consultations and then come forward with proposals.
If amendments are introduced, they will not amount to a full revision of the CFP, because the policy has delivered positive results. In case of a revision, changes should be targeted to address the identified inefficiencies and gaps.
You didn’t mention the landing obligation and controls, which remain among the most controversial elements of the CFP. Are you considering revising the rules, or strengthening control and enforcement?
It is clear that the landing obligation has not delivered the expected results.
It was introduced to address unwanted catches and discards, which previously reached 40–50%—an unsustainable level that was not in the interest of fishers.
However, in its current form, the landing obligation has not achieved the desired outcomes. Possible reasons include: ineffective monitoring and enforcement, insufficient control, too many exceptions, lack of data to quantify discards under those exceptions.
Most importantly, the sector considers the obligation difficult to implement.
Therefore, it is clear that we will need to discuss with Member States how to better address unwanted catches, also exploring alternative measures.
Such as greater selectivity?
Yes, more selectivity, better enforcement, and a case-by-case approach. One-size-fits-all solutions are not appropriate. Conditions differ, for example, between the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
We could also consider different action plans to reduce by-catches and unwanted catches. These are ideas for discussion.
While I cannot predict the outcome, it is clear that we need to address the shortcomings identified.
Another important issue is public aid for the fishing fleet. There has been much debate about support for building new vessels.
Is the Commission open to revisiting rules for fleet modernization and decarbonization, without increasing fishing capacity?
The evaluation highlighted two key points. The EU fishing fleet is ageing and needs modernization and decarbonization. There is an imbalance between fishing capacity and available biomass. So we must be very careful that any new measures do not contribute to overfishing.
We recognize the need to modernize the fleet—for environmental, safety, and economic reasons—and to make the sector more attractive for younger generations.
The current European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) provides some support, mainly focused on safety, but it is clearly insufficient.
Therefore, a targeted amendment may address this issue, always ensuring that new measures do not increase fishing pressure and remain consistent with international commitments, especially those under the WTO.
A few weeks ago, you proposed crisis measures in response to high fuel prices. Are Member States already implementing them? Do you know the amounts involved?
Several ministers approached me during the informal meeting of EU ministers to activate this crisis mechanism, which shows that it is useful.
It allows Member States to compensate increased operating costs for a limited period. The Commission’s general approach is that such measures should be targeted and temporary.
These measures can cover the period from the end of February to the end of the year.
In addition, a temporary State aid framework has been adopted, valid until 31 December 2026, allowing Member States to support sectors affected by the current crisis, including fisheries.
Some countries are already using this framework—for example, France indicated yesterday that it would do so.
Some Member States have more financial capacity than others. Is there a risk of market distortion?
The Commission provides a framework within which Member States can act according to their national circumstances and priorities.
We will carefully assess all proposals under EU law. At the same time, distortions and long-term dependency must be avoided.
The focus should remain on structural changes. In fisheries, one of the main cost driver is fuel. That is why we are working on a roadmap to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and prevent future energy shocks. We aim to present this roadmap by the end of the year, with the goal of achieving climate neutrality in the sector by 2050.
Will there be specific funds to support innovation, such as alternative propulsion systems?
The current EMFAF already includes some support for energy transition, but it is not sufficient and must be complemented by private investment.
We are currently amending the relevant funding framework to better support small-scale fishers in this transition.
Is there a risk that small-scale fleets could be left behind?
No. Small-scale fishers are central to our policy.
They represent 76% of the fleet and account for 50% of employment in the sector. We recognize their importance for coastal communities.
They are already receiving 100% support intensity under current funding mechanisms, and this will continue.
We are also working on simplifying access to funds, particularly for small-scale operators.
And regarding innovation—new engines, hydrogen, and so on?
Innovation is mainly supported under research programmes such as Horizon Europe. There are ongoing projects in this area, including experimental and private-sector initiatives.