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 to Agence Europe on Wednesday 6 May (EUROPE 13863/1) on the forthcoming reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). This is the second part of the interview (conducted in Nicosia by Lionel Changeur).
Agence Europe: One of your main priorities is the future European Ocean Act. Could you outline its main objectives and pillars? And how will it interact with the CFP and existing maritime and environmental legislation?
Costas Kadis: The Ocean Act is the legislative component of the European Ocean Pact. The Pact aims to establish a single strategic framework for all ocean-related policies, and this will be reflected in the Ocean Act.
We want to bring all ocean-related targets under one coherent framework—under one umbrella—and that will be the Ocean Act.
It will build on the revision of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive and strengthen the ecosystem-based approach in maritime spatial planning. It will also align with the review of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure overall coherence.
We are considering, among other options, bringing both revised directives under the same umbrella of the Ocean Act. In addition, it will integrate the governance framework needed for the implementation of the EU’s ocean observation initiative.
According to the Commission’s work programme, the Ocean Act should be ready by the end of 2026.
As for its interaction with the CFP and existing legislation, this will depend on the outcomes of ongoing evaluations. The CFP evaluation has just been published, while impact assessments for the Ocean Act and maritime spatial planning revision are still ongoing.
Overall, the Ocean Act will aim to modernise Europe’s maritime governance, strengthen coordination, and simplify the regulatory landscape in line with the holistic approach of the Ocean Pact.
One of the most sensitive issues is marine protected areas (MPAs) and bottom trawling. You seem to favour a case-by-case approach. Will there be clear science-based criteria guiding EU action in MPAs?
I strongly support a case-by-case, science-based approach to managing marine protected areas (MPAs).
Each MPA has its own characteristics. For each one, a dedicated management plan should be developed, based on scientific data, defining which activities can or cannot take place.
Any human activity must be compatible with the conservation objectives of the area.
This approach is fully in line with the Habitats Directive and the Natura 2000 network, where each site has its own science-based management plan.
We also want to promote co-management. In several Member States, I have seen successful examples where local stakeholders, scientists, and authorities work together to design and manage MPAs.
This approach delivers better results. When conservation measures are developed with the support of local communities, they are more effective.
We are currently collecting best practices across Europe to showcase them as examples.
This is also key to reaching our target of protecting 30% of EU seas by 2030. We are currently at around 14%. One of the reasons for this gap is resistance from local stakeholders. By involving them, we can expand the network and improve management.
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) remains a cornerstone of the CFP. Should it be adapted, especially in light of climate change?
MSY is a widely accepted principle, embedded in international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is science-based.
The evaluation confirms that MSY remains a sound and realistic approach for sustainable fisheries management. It has contributed to the progress we discussed earlier.
Howeverthe evaluation also shows that focusing solely on MSY exploitation rates has not always ensured stock recovery.
So, while the core concept remains valid, we will need to reflect on its application without changing its fundamental basis.
On the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2034), can the EU realistically deliver on sustainability and decarbonisation with a €2 billion envelope?
The €2 billion figure should not be compared directly with the current MFF (2021–2027), as the new budget structure is fundamentally different.
This amount is only one funding avenue. Ocean-related priorities, including fisheries and aquaculture, are now integrated across all three main pillars of the new Multiannual Financial Framework.
A key feature is flexibility: Member States can design national plans according to their priorities.
For example, landlocked countries may allocate little funding to fisheries, while coastal or island nations are likely to allocate more.
In addition, Member States can draw funding from other EU instruments. Combined, this could exceed current funding levels.
For instance, areas such as scientific advice, data collection, and control can also be supported through other EU funding streams, with significant resources available.
The Commission proposal is now under discussion with the Council and the European Parliament. We will see what the final outcome will be.