# C_2023349EN.01012701.xml

| 29.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/127 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/127

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU action plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries

(COM(2023) 102 final)

(2023/C 349/20)

| Rapporteur: | Javier GARAT PÉREZ |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Javier GARAT PÉREZ

Javier GARAT PÉREZ

| Referral | European Commission, 27.3.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted in section | 28.6.2023 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 41/0/4 |
| Adopted at plenary | 12.7.2023 |
| Plenary session No | 580 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 149/0/1 |

Referral

European Commission, 27.3.2023

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted in section

28.6.2023

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

41/0/4

Adopted at plenary

12.7.2023

Plenary session No

580

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

149/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | Our oceans cover 70 % of the planet’s surface area. They are a source of food and biodiversity, help regulate the climate and provide many coastal communities with livelihoods, with considerable benefits for health, society and the economy. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) therefore believes that healthy marine ecosystems are essential for the planet and for the populations that depend on them. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

Our oceans cover 70 % of the planet’s surface area. They are a source of food and biodiversity, help regulate the climate and provide many coastal communities with livelihoods, with considerable benefits for health, society and the economy. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) therefore believes that healthy marine ecosystems are essential for the planet and for the populations that depend on them.

| 1.2. | European fishers supply high-quality fishery products with a relatively low carbon footprint. After years of good management and reduced fishing pressure, the EESC welcomes the spectacular recovery of fishing stocks in the European Union. According to European Commission data, in 2009 only five fish stocks were harvested sustainably in the EU. In 2022 that number jumped to more than 60, and improvements continue to be made (1). Fish stocks, particularly in the north-east Atlantic, have been increasing significantly, in just 10 years reaching levels that are 50 % higher than those seen in 2010 (2). In addition, 99 % of landings of EU-regulated stocks in the north-east Atlantic (3), 82,5 % of the fish landed globally (4), come from sustainable fish stocks. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

European fishers supply high-quality fishery products with a relatively low carbon footprint. After years of good management and reduced fishing pressure, the EESC welcomes the spectacular recovery of fishing stocks in the European Union. According to European Commission data, in 2009 only five fish stocks were harvested sustainably in the EU. In 2022 that number jumped to more than 60, and improvements continue to be made (1

2

3

4

| 1.3. | However, this recovery has come at a significant socioeconomic cost. Quota cuts, combined with the continuous crises that fishermen face, are having a devastating effect, with vessels scrapped throughout Europe. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Europe’s current fishing fleet has 28 % fewer vessels than in 2000. The EESC therefore considers it essential to provide businesses and workers with income predictability and a framework of economic stability. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

However, this recovery has come at a significant socioeconomic cost. Quota cuts, combined with the continuous crises that fishermen face, are having a devastating effect, with vessels scrapped throughout Europe. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Europe’s current fishing fleet has 28 % fewer vessels than in 2000. The EESC therefore considers it essential to provide businesses and workers with income predictability and a framework of economic stability.

| 1.4. | While Europe’s fisheries sector has made great efforts and progress towards protecting marine ecosystems and making them sustainable, the oceans are still subject to climate change, acidification and pollution through pollutants such as plastics and other marine litter or waste from land-based activities, which pose a serious threat to marine ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. To tackle these problems, and in line with the objectives of the new post-2020 global biodiversity framework and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the EU must legally protect 30 % of its seas by 2030. The EESC calls on the Member States to achieve this objective within the set time frame and to find solutions that enable coexistence with fishing when recommended by science. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

While Europe’s fisheries sector has made great efforts and progress towards protecting marine ecosystems and making them sustainable, the oceans are still subject to climate change, acidification and pollution through pollutants such as plastics and other marine litter or waste from land-based activities, which pose a serious threat to marine ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. To tackle these problems, and in line with the objectives of the new post-2020 global biodiversity framework and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the EU must legally protect 30 % of its seas by 2030. The EESC calls on the Member States to achieve this objective within the set time frame and to find solutions that enable coexistence with fishing when recommended by science.

| 1.5. | The EESC recognises that, despite the improvements made, fishing continues to have an environmental impact on oceans. It is therefore clear that there is a need to further mitigate the impact of fishing gear, make nets more selective and protect vulnerable marine species and ecosystems. The EESC calls for a decarbonisation and environmental protection strategy that focuses more on innovation than on eliminating fishing activity and pays equal attention to the three pillars of sustainability — environmental, social and economic — while helping to retain skilled jobs in Europe. In particular, the EESC calls for a balance to be struck between the proposal to increase closures of traditional fishing areas, on the one hand, and maintaining fishing activity, on the other, in view of continuously improving fishing stocks and the increase in the risk of fleet reduction. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

The EESC recognises that, despite the improvements made, fishing continues to have an environmental impact on oceans. It is therefore clear that there is a need to further mitigate the impact of fishing gear, make nets more selective and protect vulnerable marine species and ecosystems. The EESC calls for a decarbonisation and environmental protection strategy that focuses more on innovation than on eliminating fishing activity and pays equal attention to the three pillars of sustainability — environmental, social and economic — while helping to retain skilled jobs in Europe. In particular, the EESC calls for a balance to be struck between the proposal to increase closures of traditional fishing areas, on the one hand, and maintaining fishing activity, on the other, in view of continuously improving fishing stocks and the increase in the risk of fleet reduction.

| 1.6. | The EESC notes that, although the action plan is not legally binding, it will have a significant socioeconomic cost for the Member States and their fleets. It therefore regrets the fact that the action plan is not accompanied by a socioeconomic study and does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions proposed by the European Commission. The Committee therefore calls for a socioeconomic impact study of the proposed measures, in particular with regard to the ban on bottom fishing in marine protected areas (MPAs), and calls for all necessary means, including incentives and compensatory mechanisms, to be put in place for a just and balanced transition. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

The EESC notes that, although the action plan is not legally binding, it will have a significant socioeconomic cost for the Member States and their fleets. It therefore regrets the fact that the action plan is not accompanied by a socioeconomic study and does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions proposed by the European Commission. The Committee therefore calls for a socioeconomic impact study of the proposed measures, in particular with regard to the ban on bottom fishing in marine protected areas (MPAs), and calls for all necessary means, including incentives and compensatory mechanisms, to be put in place for a just and balanced transition.

| 1.7. | The EESC considers it essential that any restrictions on bottom gear be automatically mirrored in the case of products imported from third countries, especially given that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes and that thousands of tonnes of fish come from countries such as Russia and China, and even benefit from tariff preferences (autonomous tariff quotas — ATQs). The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to include in the action plan market measures to ensure consistency and coherence between internal and external policies, as well as a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators. Mobile bottom gear catches 25 % of total European catches (5). The EESC calls for an action plan that does not increase the food security and sovereignty gap (in terms of seafood) and that allows fishermen to make full use of the fishing quotas allocated to them by law. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

The EESC considers it essential that any restrictions on bottom gear be automatically mirrored in the case of products imported from third countries, especially given that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes and that thousands of tonnes of fish come from countries such as Russia and China, and even benefit from tariff preferences (autonomous tariff quotas — ATQs). The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to include in the action plan market measures to ensure consistency and coherence between internal and external policies, as well as a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators. Mobile bottom gear catches 25 % of total European catches (5

| 1.8. | With regard to the European eel, the EESC calls for continued and fast efforts to restore eel habitats, improve the connectivity of rivers and address barriers to migration. It also calls for improving transboundary cooperation and avoiding counterproductive fishery practices. Equally important, the Committee points out that the recent fishery closures adopted for commercial and recreational activities by the EU have a negative impact on coastal fishing across Europe, and therefore calls for an analysis of the progress of the species’ recovery before further restrictive fisheries measures are contemplated. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

With regard to the European eel, the EESC calls for continued and fast efforts to restore eel habitats, improve the connectivity of rivers and address barriers to migration. It also calls for improving transboundary cooperation and avoiding counterproductive fishery practices. Equally important, the Committee points out that the recent fishery closures adopted for commercial and recreational activities by the EU have a negative impact on coastal fishing across Europe, and therefore calls for an analysis of the progress of the species’ recovery before further restrictive fisheries measures are contemplated.

| 1.9. | The EESC highlights the key role that science plays in identifying, managing and mitigating threats to marine ecosystems. The EESC concludes that it is necessary to strengthen and improve scientific recommendations, to adopt an ecosystem-based approach for managing marine resources, and to use a higher resolution when mapping the fishing footprint and carbon sinks. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

The EESC highlights the key role that science plays in identifying, managing and mitigating threats to marine ecosystems. The EESC concludes that it is necessary to strengthen and improve scientific recommendations, to adopt an ecosystem-based approach for managing marine resources, and to use a higher resolution when mapping the fishing footprint and carbon sinks.

| 1.10. | As regards munitions and other pollutants discharged into our seas in times of war, especially in the Baltic Sea, the EESC calls on the European Commission and the Member States to take operational measures to clean up the seabed, as well as legislative measures to ensure that waters are safe from these hazards. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

As regards munitions and other pollutants discharged into our seas in times of war, especially in the Baltic Sea, the EESC calls on the European Commission and the Member States to take operational measures to clean up the seabed, as well as legislative measures to ensure that waters are safe from these hazards.

2.   Background

Background

| 2.1. | According to the European Commission, the action plan is part of its drive to implement the EU’s environmental policy and the common fisheries policy in a way that is more consistent with its three pillars of sustainability: environmental, economic and social. It seeks to accelerate the transition to more sustainable fishing practices by:






  — | the use of more selective fishing gear and practices in commercial fisheries in order to reduce the catch of juvenile fish and thus increase the opportunities for fish stocks to reproduce and remain in the wild; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1.

According to the European Commission, the action plan is part of its drive to implement the EU’s environmental policy and the common fisheries policy in a way that is more consistent with its three pillars of sustainability: environmental, economic and social. It seeks to accelerate the transition to more sustainable fishing practices by:

—

the use of more selective fishing gear and practices in commercial fisheries in order to reduce the catch of juvenile fish and thus increase the opportunities for fish stocks to reproduce and remain in the wild;

| — | using technological and practical innovations aimed at preventing by-catches of sensitive species; |
| --- | --- |

—

using technological and practical innovations aimed at preventing by-catches of sensitive species;

| — | phasing out bottom fishing in all MPAs by 2030, in view of the latter’s key role in restoring marine biodiversity and the importance of the seabed for the health of marine ecosystems and in mitigating climate change. |
| --- | --- |

—

phasing out bottom fishing in all MPAs by 2030, in view of the latter’s key role in restoring marine biodiversity and the importance of the seabed for the health of marine ecosystems and in mitigating climate change.

| 2.2. | According to the European Commission, this transition should be supported by easily accessible funding, scientific work to develop and promote innovative fishing techniques, and a robust governance framework enabling dialogue between fishing and environmental communities. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

According to the European Commission, this transition should be supported by easily accessible funding, scientific work to develop and promote innovative fishing techniques, and a robust governance framework enabling dialogue between fishing and environmental communities.

3.   General comments

General comments

Legal aspects

Legal aspects

| 3.1. | The EESC takes note of the fact that the action plan is not binding and, as such, is mostly a series of recommendations to Member States based on the EU biodiversity (6), climate change adaptation (7) and Farm to Fork (8) strategies. Nevertheless, the proposed action programme will have a significant socioeconomic cost for the Member States and their fleets. In this connection, the EESC sees the action plan as a unique opportunity to open up a dialogue at European and national level, and therefore supports the creation of a joint task force for the Member States, with stakeholders (shipowners, workers and environmentalists) as observers, ensuring coordinated and inclusive decision-making processes with a view to adopting and implementing consistent management measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

The EESC takes note of the fact that the action plan is not binding and, as such, is mostly a series of recommendations to Member States based on the EU biodiversity (6

7

8

| 3.2. | The EESC points out that the EU’s fisheries and environmental legislation already requires the seabed to be protected and restored. By way of example, in the Mediterranean Sea mobile bottom fishing is prohibited at a depth of more than 1 000 metres. In the Atlantic, bottom trawling is prohibited at a depth of more than 800 metres, and 16 419 km2 of vulnerable marine ecosystems have recently been closed to bottom fishing. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

The EESC points out that the EU’s fisheries and environmental legislation already requires the seabed to be protected and restored. By way of example, in the Mediterranean Sea mobile bottom fishing is prohibited at a depth of more than 1 000 metres. In the Atlantic, bottom trawling is prohibited at a depth of more than 800 metres, and 16 419 km2

| 3.3. | However, the EU must legally protect 30 % of its seas by 2030, in line with the objectives of the new global biodiversity framework and the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The EESC calls on the Member States to achieve this objective through national strategies promoting an ecosystem approach and enabling coexistence with fishing on the basis of scientific recommendations. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

However, the EU must legally protect 30 % of its seas by 2030, in line with the objectives of the new global biodiversity framework and the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The EESC calls on the Member States to achieve this objective through national strategies promoting an ecosystem approach and enabling coexistence with fishing on the basis of scientific recommendations.

| 3.4. | The Committee stresses that the blanket ban on bottom fishing in MPAs is not provided for by any international instrument (BBNJ (9), CBD (10) or the RFMOs (11)), or even by the EU legal acquis. The EESC therefore deems it appropriate to follow the interpretation put forward by the European Commission in its own response to the Court of Auditors’ report (12), which states that ‘[d]esignating MPAs does not have to lead to restricting human activities altogether, but rather establishing effective management measures according to the conservation objectives of the areas and on the basis of the best available scientific advice. This may lead to restricting fishing activities only when it is necessary to fulfil the ecological requirements of the natural features, which are the subject of protection’. The same logic is reflected in the Habitats Directive (13) when it states that ‘[m]easures taken pursuant to this Directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics’, in addition to the requirement to carry out an impact assessment on a case-by-case basis and to take measures in a justified manner (Article 6(3)). |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

The Committee stresses that the blanket ban on bottom fishing in MPAs is not provided for by any international instrument (BBNJ (9

10

11

acquis

12

13

| 3.5. | To ensure that fishery products can be produced with the best social and environmental standards without harming the competitiveness of operators in the various EU countries, the action plan should set out a strategy creating a level playing field, including with respect to third country standards. In addition, the dialogues and consultations on how each Member State will deal with it should coordinate efforts and ensure that fleets flying under a European flag and operating in the waters of another EU Member State can be represented in national processes for establishing MPAs. Otherwise, there could be unfair treatment, meaning that there will be a lack of consistency in European waters. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

To ensure that fishery products can be produced with the best social and environmental standards without harming the competitiveness of operators in the various EU countries, the action plan should set out a strategy creating a level playing field, including with respect to third country standards. In addition, the dialogues and consultations on how each Member State will deal with it should coordinate efforts and ensure that fleets flying under a European flag and operating in the waters of another EU Member State can be represented in national processes for establishing MPAs. Otherwise, there could be unfair treatment, meaning that there will be a lack of consistency in European waters.

| 3.6. | The Committee draws attention to Article 39 TFEU establishing the need to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural (and fishing) community, to assure the availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. Therefore, and taking into account the principle of proportionality (Article 5 TEU), Member States should propose the option that has the least impact on the fleet and that ensures effective nature conservation. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

The Committee draws attention to Article 39 TFEU establishing the need to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural (and fishing) community, to assure the availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. Therefore, and taking into account the principle of proportionality (Article 5 TEU), Member States should propose the option that has the least impact on the fleet and that ensures effective nature conservation.

| 3.7. | The EESC points out that Article 2(1)(b) of the Paris Agreement (14) highlights the need to increase the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emission development, in a way that does not threaten food production. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

The EESC points out that Article 2(1)(b) of the Paris Agreement (14

Scope

Scope

| 3.8. | The Commission urges the Member States to adopt national measures and, where appropriate, to submit joint recommendations to the Commission to ensure that mobile bottom fishing is phased out in all MPAs by 2030. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

The Commission urges the Member States to adopt national measures and, where appropriate, to submit joint recommendations to the Commission to ensure that mobile bottom fishing is phased out in all MPAs by 2030.

| 3.9. | The EESC reiterates that MPAs may lead to fishing activities being restricted when it is necessary to comply with the ecological requirements of the natural features that are protected. In this context, MPAs could include many other conservation measures that are not linked to bottom fishing, such as those to protect sea birds, cetaceans and turtles. Consequently, when proposing measures relating to bottom fishing gear, the Committee calls on the Commission to focus its efforts on MPAs whose task is to protect vulnerable seabeds and not other types of seabed. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

The EESC reiterates that MPAs may lead to fishing activities being restricted when it is necessary to comply with the ecological requirements of the natural features that are protected. In this context, MPAs could include many other conservation measures that are not linked to bottom fishing, such as those to protect sea birds, cetaceans and turtles. Consequently, when proposing measures relating to bottom fishing gear, the Committee calls on the Commission to focus its efforts on MPAs whose task is to protect vulnerable seabeds and not other types of seabed.

| 3.10. | The EESC points out that target 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 % of coastal and marine areas are effectively conserved and managed through MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM), while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognising and respecting the rights of local communities. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

The EESC points out that target 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 % of coastal and marine areas are effectively conserved and managed through MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM), while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognising and respecting the rights of local communities.

| 3.11. | In this context, the EESC regrets the fact that the Commission does not mention inclusive and effective environmental protection tools, such as the OECMs, in the action plan. The EESC calls for the ‘handbook for identifying, evaluating and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures in marine fisheries’, published by the FAO in 2022 (15), to be used. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

In this context, the EESC regrets the fact that the Commission does not mention inclusive and effective environmental protection tools, such as the OECMs, in the action plan. The EESC calls for the ‘handbook for identifying, evaluating and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures in marine fisheries’, published by the FAO in 2022 (15

| 3.12. | The EESC also calls for OECMs to be included in the calculation of the statutory protection target of 30 % so that this objective can be achieved in a proportionate manner. In this regard, the EESC asks for other closures to bottom fishing established by fisheries legislation to be taken into account, such as the 87 areas recently closed to bottom fishing in the Atlantic, or the closures in the Western Mediterranean due to the multiannual management plan. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

The EESC also calls for OECMs to be included in the calculation of the statutory protection target of 30 % so that this objective can be achieved in a proportionate manner. In this regard, the EESC asks for other closures to bottom fishing established by fisheries legislation to be taken into account, such as the 87 areas recently closed to bottom fishing in the Atlantic, or the closures in the Western Mediterranean due to the multiannual management plan.

Fishing footprint

Fishing footprint

| 3.13. | Citing a special ICES opinion of 24 June 2021, the action plan specifies that, generally speaking, mobile bottom fishing in the north-east Atlantic is carried out in 80–90 % of ‘fishing areas’. The EESC points out that the figures are this high mainly due to low-resolution mapping of the fishing footprint. ICES uses a grid to estimate the impact of bottom fishing, with a resolution of around 17 km2 (northern latitudes) and 27 km2 (southern latitudes). In other words, if a vessel traces a line along any of the points in that area, the entire area is considered fished. This artificially increases the exploited area and leads to political decision-making using inaccurate mapping. The EESC therefore asks the Commission to highlight in its action plan the need for better resolution mapping of bottom gear. In the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (16) implementation report, the Commission notes that the main activities that cause real, physical loss of benthic (17) habitats were ‘land claim and flood defence, port construction, solid waste disposal, renewable energy production and impacts from unsustainable practices of aquaculture’ (18). The EESC therefore asks the European Commission to also propose additional measures to minimise or eliminate the impact of these activities, which in turn have a negative impact on fishing activity. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

Citing a special ICES opinion of 24 June 2021, the action plan specifies that, generally speaking, mobile bottom fishing in the north-east Atlantic is carried out in 80–90 % of ‘fishing areas’. The EESC points out that the figures are this high mainly due to low-resolution mapping of the fishing footprint. ICES uses a grid to estimate the impact of bottom fishing, with a resolution of around 17 km2

2

16

17

18

Science

Science

| 3.14. | Disturbances such as acidification, ocean heat waves, oxygen scarcity, toxic algal blooms, parasites or reproduction problems may cause fish stocks to collapse or cause them to move to deeper and colder waters. Plastics, microplastics and other pollutants from human activities also have a negative impact on marine ecosystems. Due to these factors, traditional fisheries science is unable to understand, in some cases, the status of some stocks or the variations in them. The EESC concludes that this makes it more necessary than ever to use an ecosystem approach and improve science in order to assess, understand and adapt to changes. |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

Disturbances such as acidification, ocean heat waves, oxygen scarcity, toxic algal blooms, parasites or reproduction problems may cause fish stocks to collapse or cause them to move to deeper and colder waters. Plastics, microplastics and other pollutants from human activities also have a negative impact on marine ecosystems. Due to these factors, traditional fisheries science is unable to understand, in some cases, the status of some stocks or the variations in them. The EESC concludes that this makes it more necessary than ever to use an ecosystem approach and improve science in order to assess, understand and adapt to changes.

| 3.15. | The action plan announces that, in 2024, the Commission will launch a study quantifying the carbon storage capacity of the EU seabed and the potential impacts of bottom fishing on this capacity. The EESC welcomes this initiative. In this context, the EESC calls for consideration to be given to whether monitoring sediment disturbance is effective in terms of climate mitigation. The effect of shifting fishing efforts to new, unexploited areas due to closures should also be studied, as should the effects of natural events, such as storms, on sediments. These should then be compared to the effects of bottom fishing. |
| --- | --- |

3.15.

The action plan announces that, in 2024, the Commission will launch a study quantifying the carbon storage capacity of the EU seabed and the potential impacts of bottom fishing on this capacity. The EESC welcomes this initiative. In this context, the EESC calls for consideration to be given to whether monitoring sediment disturbance is effective in terms of climate mitigation. The effect of shifting fishing efforts to new, unexploited areas due to closures should also be studied, as should the effects of natural events, such as storms, on sediments. These should then be compared to the effects of bottom fishing.

| 3.16. | The EESC fully supports the Commission’s initiative to develop an interactive platform on selective and innovative fishing gear to exchange knowledge and good practices. In this context, the Committee highlights the ICES recommendations on innovative fishing gear (19), where experts have assessed the benefits and the impacts of innovative gear on marine ecosystems, sensitive habitats and the selectivity of fisheries. The EESC welcomes the fact that most of the progress was made in bottom fisheries and encourages further progress in this direction. |
| --- | --- |

3.16.

The EESC fully supports the Commission’s initiative to develop an interactive platform on selective and innovative fishing gear to exchange knowledge and good practices. In this context, the Committee highlights the ICES recommendations on innovative fishing gear (19

Socioeconomic impact

Socioeconomic impact

| 3.17. | Although it is not mandatory, the EESC calls for a socioeconomic impact assessment of the proposed measures, in particular on the ban on bottom fishing in MPAs. Given that, in the EU, trawling alone accounts for 7 000 fishing vessels, 20 000 fishermen, one third of the total fishing capacity, 38 % of the income generated by the EU fleet, and 25 % of total catches, it is vital to assess the impacts of the measures proposed. |
| --- | --- |

3.17.

Although it is not mandatory, the EESC calls for a socioeconomic impact assessment of the proposed measures, in particular on the ban on bottom fishing in MPAs. Given that, in the EU, trawling alone accounts for 7 000 fishing vessels, 20 000 fishermen, one third of the total fishing capacity, 38 % of the income generated by the EU fleet, and 25 % of total catches, it is vital to assess the impacts of the measures proposed.

| 3.18. | The EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to assess and minimise the direct impact not only of the proposed measures, such as losing access to traditional grounds, but also of the displacement of fishing efforts to other areas, which may lead to compatibility problems between different fishing gear, make target species inaccessible and increase fuel consumption. |
| --- | --- |

3.18.

The EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to assess and minimise the direct impact not only of the proposed measures, such as losing access to traditional grounds, but also of the displacement of fishing efforts to other areas, which may lead to compatibility problems between different fishing gear, make target species inaccessible and increase fuel consumption.

Food security

Food security

| 3.19. | The conclusions of the action plan highlight the need to ensure food security, as well as the socioeconomic well-being of fishermen, coastal communities and society in general. However, the ban on bottom fishing in current MPAs (10 % of waters) alone will lead to a 2 % increase in imports. Given the importance of achieving a just transition, the EESC calls for an assessment to be carried out on the estimated increase in imports for the objectives set out in the action plan (30 % of waters). |
| --- | --- |

3.19.

The conclusions of the action plan highlight the need to ensure food security, as well as the socioeconomic well-being of fishermen, coastal communities and society in general. However, the ban on bottom fishing in current MPAs (10 % of waters) alone will lead to a 2 % increase in imports. Given the importance of achieving a just transition, the EESC calls for an assessment to be carried out on the estimated increase in imports for the objectives set out in the action plan (30 % of waters).

| 3.20. | The EESC points out that 70 % of the fish consumed in the EU already comes from third countries, and that mobile bottom gear catch 25 % of total European catches. The EESC calls for an action plan that does not increase the food security and sovereignty gap (in terms of seafood) and that allows fishermen to make full use of the fishing quotas allocated to them by law. |
| --- | --- |

3.20.

The EESC points out that 70 % of the fish consumed in the EU already comes from third countries, and that mobile bottom gear catch 25 % of total European catches. The EESC calls for an action plan that does not increase the food security and sovereignty gap (in terms of seafood) and that allows fishermen to make full use of the fishing quotas allocated to them by law.

Market measures

Market measures

| 3.21. | The EESC considers it essential that restrictions on bottom gear be automatically mirrored in products imported from third countries. This question is particularly relevant given that thousands of tonnes of white fish (for example Alaska pollock, cod and haddock) come from Russia and China, and even benefit from tariff preferences (ATQs). The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to include in the action plan market measures to ensure consistency and coherence between internal and external policies, as well as a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators. |
| --- | --- |

3.21.

The EESC considers it essential that restrictions on bottom gear be automatically mirrored in products imported from third countries. This question is particularly relevant given that thousands of tonnes of white fish (for example Alaska pollock, cod and haddock) come from Russia and China, and even benefit from tariff preferences (ATQs). The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to include in the action plan market measures to ensure consistency and coherence between internal and external policies, as well as a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators.

Funding

Funding

| 3.22. | The EESC regrets the fact that the action plan does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for either the green or energy transitions proposed by the European Commission. An initiative of this magnitude and which affects so many bottom-fishing vessels must be accompanied by the necessary compensatory incentives and mechanisms. The EESC calls for public aid to be allocated to research and innovation aimed at reducing contact with the seabed, rather than to changing fishing gear or scrapping. The latter would require huge sums of money, which are not available in the current funds, and would involve technical impediments when changing fishing methods. The EESC also calls for the seasonality and specificity of the fisheries sector to be taken into account. The EESC requests that (in addition to the European Maritime Fund for Fisheries and Aquaculture (EMFAF)) the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund adopt fisheries-focused programmes in order to improve the channelling of funds to areas where they are most needed. Furthermore, the Committee calls on the European Commission to produce monitoring reports to verify whether funds are being properly implemented and distributed. |
| --- | --- |

3.22.

The EESC regrets the fact that the action plan does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for either the green or energy transitions proposed by the European Commission. An initiative of this magnitude and which affects so many bottom-fishing vessels must be accompanied by the necessary compensatory incentives and mechanisms. The EESC calls for public aid to be allocated to research and innovation aimed at reducing contact with the seabed, rather than to changing fishing gear or scrapping. The latter would require huge sums of money, which are not available in the current funds, and would involve technical impediments when changing fishing methods. The EESC also calls for the seasonality and specificity of the fisheries sector to be taken into account. The EESC requests that (in addition to the European Maritime Fund for Fisheries and Aquaculture (EMFAF)) the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund adopt fisheries-focused programmes in order to improve the channelling of funds to areas where they are most needed. Furthermore, the Committee calls on the European Commission to produce monitoring reports to verify whether funds are being properly implemented and distributed.

By-catches

By-catches

| 3.23. | The EESC fully agrees with the Commission on the need to minimise and, where possible, eliminate by-catches of sensitive marine species (for example, the common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay). The EESC is concerned about vulnerable species that are particularly threatened, such as some species of shark, sea turtle, marine mammal (Baltic Proper harbour porpoise and Mediterranean monk seal) and sea bird (Balearic shearwater). The EESC calls on the Member States to take national or joint measures to minimise by-catch. |
| --- | --- |

3.23.

The EESC fully agrees with the Commission on the need to minimise and, where possible, eliminate by-catches of sensitive marine species (for example, the common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay). The EESC is concerned about vulnerable species that are particularly threatened, such as some species of shark, sea turtle, marine mammal (Baltic Proper harbour porpoise and Mediterranean monk seal) and sea bird (Balearic shearwater). The EESC calls on the Member States to take national or joint measures to minimise by-catch.

| 3.24. | In this regard, the EESC welcomes the latest measures taken by some Member States which have deployed on-board observers and acoustic devices that emit ultrasound to drive away dolphins. Finally, the EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that closures of fishing areas to protect sensitive species are balanced, and that they take into account the great socioeconomic impact that this will have on the fleet. |
| --- | --- |

3.24.

In this regard, the EESC welcomes the latest measures taken by some Member States which have deployed on-board observers and acoustic devices that emit ultrasound to drive away dolphins. Finally, the EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that closures of fishing areas to protect sensitive species are balanced, and that they take into account the great socioeconomic impact that this will have on the fleet.

| 3.25. | The EESC is concerned about the critical status of the European eel and reiterates the decisive measures adopted by the Council in December 2022 to improve the situation, which resulted in a six-month closure of marine catches and a total ban on recreational fishing. In this regard, the EESC points out that these measures will have a major negative impact on coastal fishing across Europe, and therefore calls for an analysis of the progress of the species’ recovery before further restrictive measures are taken. Nonetheless, the Committee believes it fundamental to address all fishery and non-fishery-related impacts and to better implement relevant legislation such as the Water Framework Directive (20), the Habitats Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in order to improve the situation as soon as possible, avoiding further restriction. |
| --- | --- |

3.25.

The EESC is concerned about the critical status of the European eel and reiterates the decisive measures adopted by the Council in December 2022 to improve the situation, which resulted in a six-month closure of marine catches and a total ban on recreational fishing. In this regard, the EESC points out that these measures will have a major negative impact on coastal fishing across Europe, and therefore calls for an analysis of the progress of the species’ recovery before further restrictive measures are taken. Nonetheless, the Committee believes it fundamental to address all fishery and non-fishery-related impacts and to better implement relevant legislation such as the Water Framework Directive (20

Other pollutants

Other pollutants

| 3.26. | It is estimated that, due to the wars of the last century, the Baltic Sea alone has around 50 000 tonnes of chemical munitions, 500 000 tonnes of conventional weapons and 10 000 wrecks on its seabed (21). This danger is being exacerbated by Russia’s brutal military aggression against Ukraine. Dumped munitions pose a real threat to human life and the marine environment, jeopardising not only fishing and seafaring but also the development of other sectors of the blue economy. The EESC calls on the European Commission and the Member States to take operational steps to clean up the seabed, as well as legislative measures to ensure that waters are safe from these hazards. The EESC stresses the importance of the European Food Safety Authority and of Member States’ national programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in safeguarding the marine environment as a source of safe and healthy food for humans. |
| --- | --- |

3.26.

It is estimated that, due to the wars of the last century, the Baltic Sea alone has around 50 000 tonnes of chemical munitions, 500 000 tonnes of conventional weapons and 10 000 wrecks on its seabed (21

Blue economy

Blue economy

| 3.27. | The EESC points out that the various sectors making up the blue economy are interdependent (fisheries, biotechnology, seafaring, maritime transport, aquaculture, shipyards, supply chains, logistics and transport). The loss or scrapping of fishing vessels therefore has a direct impact on European shipyards and other logistics services. In this regard, the EESC highlights the need for a decarbonisation and environmental protection strategy that focuses more on innovation than on eliminating fishing activity, and pays equal attention to the three pillars of sustainability — environmental, social and economic — while helping to retain skilled jobs in Europe (22). Furthermore, the EESC points out that the fisheries sector helps to maintain populations in rural coastal communities that are highly dependent on this industry (23). The reduction or loss of the fisheries sector leads directly to an increase in migratory flows to large cities, with all the problems that population concentration entails. |
| --- | --- |

3.27.

The EESC points out that the various sectors making up the blue economy are interdependent (fisheries, biotechnology, seafaring, maritime transport, aquaculture, shipyards, supply chains, logistics and transport). The loss or scrapping of fishing vessels therefore has a direct impact on European shipyards and other logistics services. In this regard, the EESC highlights the need for a decarbonisation and environmental protection strategy that focuses more on innovation than on eliminating fishing activity, and pays equal attention to the three pillars of sustainability — environmental, social and economic — while helping to retain skilled jobs in Europe (22

23

Wind energy

Wind energy

| 3.28. | In line with the European Green Deal, the EU has set itself the target of increasing its offshore energy generation by a factor of 20 to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. However, this increase affects the marine environment, for example through the installation of wind farms and the laying of deep-water cables. Several Member States have even announced that they are going to connect their offshore electricity grids, mainly via artificial energy islands in the Baltic and the Atlantic. The EESC is fully aware of the need for renewable energy sources that need to coexist with sustainable food sources (24). It therefore calls for the careful development of offshore wind energy in order to avoid making the same mistakes as in the past, minimising the impact on biodiversity. Furthermore, the EESC asks that the traditional fishing grounds of fishers be unaffected by the installation of these structures. |
| --- | --- |

3.28.

In line with the European Green Deal, the EU has set itself the target of increasing its offshore energy generation by a factor of 20 to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. However, this increase affects the marine environment, for example through the installation of wind farms and the laying of deep-water cables. Several Member States have even announced that they are going to connect their offshore electricity grids, mainly via artificial energy islands in the Baltic and the Atlantic. The EESC is fully aware of the need for renewable energy sources that need to coexist with sustainable food sources (24

Brussels, 12 July 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE

---

(1)  COM(2023) 103.

1

(2)  STECF Adhoc 20-01.

2

(3)  COM(2020) 248.

3

(4)  
  The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022 (FAO).

4

The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022

(5)  STECF 21-08.

5

(6)  COM(2020) 380.

6

(7)  COM(2021) 82.

7

(8)  COM(2020) 381.

8

(9)  Agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

9

(10)  Convention on Biological Diversity.

10

(11)  Regional fisheries management organisations.

11

(12)  ECA Special report 26/2020.

12

(13)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).

13

(14)  Paris Agreement 2015 (UN).

14

(15)  
  Handbook for identifying, evaluating and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures in marine fisheries (FAO).

15

Handbook for identifying, evaluating and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures in marine fisheries

(16)  Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19).

16

(17)  Habitats found on the seabed.

17

(18)  COM(2020) 259.

18

(19)  ICES sr.2020.12.

19

(20)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1).

20

(21)  
  Clearing chemical and conventional munitions from the sea (Euractiv).

21

Clearing chemical and conventional munitions from the sea

(22)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New approach for a sustainable blue economy in the EU — Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future (COM(2021) 240 final) (OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 108).

22

(23)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The Common Fisheries Policy on the ground: towards sustainable and resilient coastal communities in the EU (NAT-VII/035).

23

The Common Fisheries Policy on the ground: towards sustainable and resilient coastal communities in the EU

(24)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — An EU Strategy to harness the potential of offshore renewable energy for a climate neutral future’ (COM(2020) 741 final) (OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 152).

24

---