Debate: Fisheries control
Date: TUESDAY, 9 MARCH 2021
Speaker: Virginijus Sinkevičius
Language: EN

I would like to address the following points from the debate, which are of particular importance to me. First of all, the installation of CCTV on board should be only voluntary. That was raised. The voluntary use of CCTV for control of the landing obligation is an illusion. Since the adoption of the common fisheries policy in 2013, Member States have already had the possibility to impose CCTV for the control of the landing obligation, but it has not happened and the illegal discards are continuing. Control tools cannot be optional. They should apply in a non-discriminatory way to all vessels belonging to the same risk category. On your remarks that CCTV poses a risk for the personal data of operators and their staff, let me reassure you that the Commission is mindful of the importance of ensuring personal data protection because the objectives are to monitor possible discarding and slippage of marine resources. The cameras do not interfere with the lives of the crew. The European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) has designed guidelines for the installation of remote electronic monitoring, including CCTV, on many large vessels and smaller vessels. Yes, due to the pandemic, I didn’t have a chance to visit many of your constituencies, but the ones I visited have had CCTV cameras installed on board for many years. So I do not think this is a recent issue. And let’s not forget that the cameras on fishing vessels may also help to improve the working conditions of the fishers on board.  On the margin of tolerance, let me recall here one of the fundamental principles of the common fisheries policy, the accurate reporting of catches. Without this, setting quotas just has no purpose. The rule of 10% per species has been foreseen in the EU for more than ten years, and it is not changed by the Commission proposal. This rule applies to all fisheries in the different sea basins.  The margin of tolerance is meant to mitigate and discourage under—reporting, especially for species subject to quotas because they are in a fragile state. Some of them, such as yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean, are overfished. Most tuna are fished in the waters of third countries and landed in third countries where controls are not performed to the same standards as in the EU. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the tuna fisheries provide as accurate estimates of their catches as possible and use all available means and technologies to enable those estimations. Techniques and technologies available today and their use on board the large majority of fishing vessels, in particular the larger ones, make it possible to estimate catches much more accurately than ten percent while at sea. If we managed to send men to the moon in the 1960s, we can certainly estimate catches within 10% accuracy in 2021.  On small—scale fisheries, over 80% of the Union’s fishing fleet consists of vessels below 12 metres, accounting for more than 40% of employment. They are the backbone of our fisheries sector. Small-scale fisheries, therefore, play an important role in the Union from a biological, economic and social perspective. As such, it is fundamental to have accurate fisheries data from all fleet segments, including the small-scale and recreational ones, to measure the real impact on fish stocks. This is for the long—term sustainability and productivity of stocks and for the social, economic and employment benefits of the small-scale sector that depend on those stocks.  Some of you have raised concerns as to the burden and costs of electronic reporting for small—scale fisheries. Let me be clear that there will be no further burden on small—scale fishers. Digital and smart solutions are already available and they will be accessible at zero cost. The new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) managed to secure 100% aid intensity for small-scale vessels.  Finally, I cannot respond to some of the remarks made, but I have of course to address the Commission’s outreach with MEPs ahead of the European Parliament bid. I fully agree with and am extremely respectful of the Commission’s and the co—legislators’ respective institutional rules. The Treaty foresees that the Commission promotes the general interest of the EU and that it submits a legislative proposal to that end. The Commission proposal for fisheries control foresees the establishment of a modern and efficient control system, ensuring the green digital transition.  In the various discussions that have taken place in the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) over the last weeks and months, my services voiced their concerns regarding certain amendments, drawing Parliament’s attention to the possible consequences, including as regards critical issues of coherence with the other policy areas, such as trade for example. This is part of our institutional role and this is what is expected from the Commission. This has nothing to do with interfering in the decision—making process of democratically elected institutions.  The political decision is yours, but it is our duty to raise awareness and to sound alarm bells where necessary as regards possible problematic consequences, including on other policies. In this spirit and in full respect of our, and your, role, we have also brought these concerns to the attention of other Members of the European Parliament beyond the Committee, namely because of the potential impact on other policies. I believe that this increases the transparency of this democratic process and is therefore indeed in the interests of our citizens and, more broadly, the general interests of the European Union.  On the allegations that the Commission is criminalising the fishers, no, we do not criminalise fishermen and women, quite the contrary. I know very well that most of them comply with the rules and try to make a living, complying with the rules. The Commission is on the side of the fishers, especially on the side of those that comply with the rules and contribute to sustainable fishing. But that is the whole point. We need to protect fishermen and women who are complying with the rules. We need to protect them against unfair competition with those not complying. When catches are not accurately recorded and reported to circumvent fishing quotas, when one is using an engine above the authorised power or when illegal discards take place, let me be very clear, not complying with the rules is unfair competition.  Strong controls protect legitimate operators. The fisheries sector should therefore support the use of cameras, accurate catch reporting and control of engine power instead of combating it. A strong control system is essential to implement our ambitious common fisheries policy and thus to protect our valuable fisheries resources and to sustain the livelihoods of our fishermen and women, and of course our coastal communities in general. Without effective control and enforcement, the best policies risk remaining toothless. We need an effective fisheries control system to ensure that everybody plays by the same rules. I want to be very clear that this is, first and foremost, in the interests of all the fishermen and women who, day by day, respect the rules and are those contributing to sustainable fisheries. It is their interests that we all should have in mind on a daily basis, and is for them, and with them, that we want to modernise the control system.  I am sorry for taking this long, but I really wanted to answer all your concerns.