OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises in the European Union

Europêche

Europêche represents fishing enterprises across the EU, promoting sustainable fishing practices that balance environmental health with the economic and social needs of the fishing sector.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and

1 Dec 2025 · Presentation of the proposal for a “Blue Foods” project and action plan

Meeting with Francesca Arena (Cabinet of Commissioner Costas Kadis) and Confederación Española de Pesca

13 Nov 2025 · Fisheries control - Margin of tolerance

Meeting with Gabriele Giudice (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Raffaele Fitto), Kyriacos Kyriacou (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Raffaele Fitto) and

20 Oct 2025 · Presentation of call for an EU Action Plan on Blue Foods

Meeting with Luis Molledo (Head of Unit Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and Confederación Española de Pesca

30 Sept 2025 · Exchange of views on the activities of the representatives in West and Central Africa

Response to An EU strategy for fisheries external action

15 Sept 2025

Europêche welcomes the European Commission initiative to call for feedback on the EU strategy for fisheries external action. As a general comment, we call for meaningful involvement of the sector in the formulation and review of EU external fisheries policies to ensure its legitimacy, acceptance, and effectiveness. Please find enclosed our feedack.
Read full response

Response to Implementing Act on the provision applying as from January 2026 of the amended Fisheries Control Regulation

25 Aug 2025

We thank the Commission for engaging stakeholders in this consultation process. We would recommend to avoid excessive administrative burden on the vessel master at departure, when the vessel and crew security are its priority, remove "immediately" from the requirements for the vessel master to send "immediately before departure" numerous messages (28 and point (9) of Annex XV) and to allow the necessary adaptation time for vessels masters, giving them some delay for the technical adaptation of VMS and/or fishing logbook when necessary (i.e. date and time transmission to third countries in art.32, change of geographical areas, codes to be used in points (25) and (27) of Annex XV). In addition, the current wording of article 9 is not coherent with existing RFMO rules, which would lead to additional administrative burden, a breach of level playing field and loss of competitiveness, without added value on sustainability or monitoring. Especially, European flagged vessels would be the only ones not being able to fish on others vessels FADs while this is an essential element to minimize the deployment of FADs and reduce carbon footprint. They would also have to use two different markings on each FAD : the one of the EU (external registration letters and numbers), and the one of the RFMO (RFMO vessels register number and/or vessel name). Finally, in case the embarkation (craft) on board EU catching vessel suffers some damage or breakdown, it shall still be authorized to carry out fishing activities (i.e. hauling the net) with another vessels craft. We thus recommend modifying article 9 on conditions relating to the marking of craft and FAD as follows: 1. Unless otherwise provided under the rules of the common fisheries policy: (a) Any craft carried on board Union catching vessels shall be marked with external registration letters and number(s) of the Union catching vessel(s) which use it; (b) Prior to their deployment at sea, FADs shall be marked with the registration letters and number(s) of the Union catching vessels using it, such as the marking required by the competent RFMO, as well as with a unique FAD identifier when such an identifier is required under the rules of the common fisheries policy. 2. It shall be prohibited to carry out fishing activities with crafts which are not marked and identifiable in accordance with the provisions of this Article or to use a craft with external registration letters and number(s) that do not correspond to the Union catching vessel using it, unless for security or safety reasons. Any encounter with a FAD that is not marked in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be reported. We finally call the attention of the Commission about the wrong translation of craft into Spanish in the Fisheries Control Regulation 2023/2842 and recommend correcting it in the implementing act. We hope those comments will be taken into consideration and are available for any further explanation.
Read full response

Response to Delegated Act on the provision applying as from January 2026 of the amended Fisheries Control Regulation

10 Aug 2025

We thank the Commission for engaging stakeholders in this consultation process and broadly support the text as presented. However, we would like to stress the critical importance of well-defined and effective forced labour indicators, especially in light of Regulation (EU) 2024/1328 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market, and the Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD). These instruments place significant obligations on companies and authorities to identify, mitigate, and eliminate forced labour risks in supply chains. As currently defined in the delegated act, the forced labour indicators appear incomplete and insufficient. In addition, we note that the Fisheries Control Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1224/2009) does not explicitly provide a legal basis for such a delegation of powers. We therefore recommend that the development of forced labour indicators be addressed through a dedicated legislative initiative. This work should ideally be led by DG EMPL, with close cooperation from DG MARE and DG MOVE, to ensure a coherent, cross-sectoral approach aligned with the broader EU legal framework.
Read full response

Meeting with Klaus Berend (Director Health and Food Safety) and

3 Jul 2025 · Mercury levels in canned fish.

Meeting with Fernando Andresen Guimaraes (Director Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and

4 Jun 2025 · Situation of the EU external fishing fleet and current challenges

Meeting with Francesca Arena (Cabinet of Commissioner Costas Kadis)

3 Jun 2025 · Control Regulation - implementing and delegated acts

Meeting with Fabrizio Donatella (Director Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and

30 Apr 2025 · EU-Norway fisheries developments and timeline for the adoption of the EU Regulation on inter-annual quota transfers.

Response to Food safety – rules for fishery products frozen in brine on board vessels

23 Apr 2025

We welcome this change of the regulation which will, in our view: - clarifies rules for freezing tuna on board; - go towards a level playing field between EU fleets, submitted to strict sanitary controls and certifications, and non-EU fleets exporting to the EU market. Regarding the following paragraph: "5. The competent authority must check the validation plan, and identify the freezing capacity, of freezer vessels that freeze tuna in brine as referred to in Part II, point 8, during the approval process of those freezer vessels in accordance with Article 4(3) of this Regulation or, in the case of freezer vessels flying the flag of a third country, when placing the freezer vessels on the list drawn up in accordance with Article 127(3), points (e)(ii) and (iii), of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.; " We insist on the importance of : - ensuring correct control of third countries' "competent authorities" - realizing frequent controls of imported products, and regular audits of the country of origin's company. This is paramount for ensuring both a correct implementation of the regulation, and a level playing field for the European fleet.
Read full response

Europêche urges prioritizing fishers in the European Oceans Pact

7 Feb 2025
Topic — The initiative aims to create a coherent framework for all EU ocean policies.
Message — Europêche demands a fisheries-centered approach that prioritizes food sovereignty and avoids new legislative burdens. They advocate for an "EU Action Plan for Blue Foods" and the safeguarding of traditional fishing grounds.123
Why — This would protect the sector's viability by reducing regulatory costs and securing access to resources.45
Impact — Offshore renewable energy developers would lose access to areas designated for traditional fishing activities.6
Read full response

Meeting with Nicolás González Casares (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Jan 2025 · Fisheries

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and

25 Sept 2024 · The meeting aimed to discuss a number of topical issues related to fisheries management, notably relations with Norway, the upcoming 2024 ICCAT annual meeting and fishing opportunities for 2025

Response to Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy

6 Sept 2024

Please find attached Europêche's feedback to the consultation about the evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy. We remain at your disposal for more information.
Read full response

Response to Application of the ‘do no significant harm’ principle to the Social Climate Fund and its possible future extension

27 May 2024

Europêche wishes to reflect on the implementation of the DNSH principle for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The EU fishing industry is part of the solution to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Fishers provide one of the healthiest animal proteins, with one of the smallest carbon footprints. According to UNCTAD data, EU fisheries emissions represent 0.01% of global anthropogenic emissions. This is why it is a key strategic sector for our society. The fishing sector commitment to lower its environmental footprint is undeniable. According to UNCTAD, the total GHG emissions of the fishing fleet of the European Union fell by 52% between 1990 and 2021 (https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditcted2023d5_en.pdf, page 8). Yet, fishers are facing the consequences of climate change at sea. After the last Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform in 2013, the whole legislation is directed to achieve sustainability, so the only acceptable sustainable criteria and do no significant harm principle would be fishing under EU legislation. The current European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) contributes to the achievement of the environmental and climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives of the Union. That contribution is tracked in accordance with a methodology set in the Annexes therein. Furthermore, within the EMFAF there is a principle by which all the fishery subsidies are permitted (and sustainable) as long as they are not forbidden. These subsidies help implement the CFP, whose main goal is to contribute to the sustainability of the fish resources. The introduction of new principles making distinctions which may indicate that certain investments are more sustainable or more commendable than others would be confusing, lead to legal uncertainty and the underutilisation of the fund. It may also jeopardise the allocation of funding to support the energy transition of the fishing sector. The Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries announced in April this year a full evaluation of the CFP with the aim to reform its policies (including funding) in the next legislative period. It would be inconsistent to adopt new provisions and conditions to funding for fisheries under taxonomy which may divert from the future CFP. In 2020, the Commission set up technical expert groups to produce a set of technical screening criteria for each sector, being the one related to our sector a subgroup for Agriculture / Forestry / Fishery. The EU fishing sector denounced a lack of transparency, legitimacy and expertise in the composition of the Platform on Sustainable Finance (PSF) for fisheries since no fishing sector representative was present. In addition, the recommendations put forward by the group (drafted by eNGOs) were unrealistic with unachievable targets that went way beyond existing EU legislation, internationally agreed standards and the fisheries reality. As a result, under the proposed standards, the vast majority of the EU fishing industry would not be able to reach alignment with the criteria, especially small companies. The sector alerted Commissioner McGuiness by letter dated 12 September 2022 that an unworkable EU Taxonomy will impact the ability of operators to attract funding for their sustainable fishing activities. In the end, the European Commission decided to suspend the process. In summary, any DNSH guidance should work without prejudice to fund-specific fisheries legislation, including possible derogations due to other prevailing public policy objectives such as food security. In this context, the Paris Agreement (CoP 21) states in its Art.2 that the international community must increase the ability to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change and foster climate resilience, in a manner that does not threaten food production.
Read full response

Response to Better protecting sharks through sustainable fishing and trade

30 Apr 2024

Overview of the potential repercussions of implementing a trade ban on loose shark fins Conservation Impact: It is important to note that this proposed initiative lacks scientific support from independent scientific institutes, which is crucial for ensuring sustainable fisheries management and is required by EU Treaties. The EU Communication on the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) "Stop Finning - Stop the Trade" highlights a downward trend in catches since 2000 (from 868 000 to 665 622 in 2020), contradicting the notion of "increasing fishing pressure" cited in the new call for evidence. Additionally, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) are further implementing conservation measures, such as for mako sharks, and setting catch limits (e.g., blue shark), that will reduce effort. According to FAO, more restrictive regulations in the market states have caused the reduction of the trade in shark fins. For example, the traded volume of shortfin mako fins has decreased by 50% since 2003. The call for evidence broadly addresses sharks, encompassing over 300 species worldwide. However, the primary species targeted by EU operators is the blue shark, which currently has a healthy population. This approach is akin to justifying measures for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean based on the state of yellow fin tuna populations in the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, since 2019, the sector has been developing a fisheries improvement programme (FIP) with a focus on swordfish and blue shark. There is a clear commitment to improve science, mitigation techniques and increase fisheries observers on board. The ultimate goal is to obtain a MSC certification. In light of the above, implementing the ban would primarily affect EU operators who adhere to strict traceability standards, while having minimal impact on third-country fleets. This could worsen conservation efforts and hinder climate mitigation. It should be noted that currently the EU imports insignificant quantities of shark species (most probably from EU associated fleets). Therefore, the impact on 3rd countrys fleet would be almost negligible. The ban would compromise the economic viability of the fishery and therefore, EU fishing operations will come to an end. In this scenario, valuable data and insights from the sector would be lost, compromising scientific advice. Furthermore, the surface long-line fleet has limited potential to shift fishing efforts to other species such as swordfish or tuna, as fishing opportunities are already allocated and maximized (and even reduced for the EU). Economic Impact: Operators will likely seek decommissioning schemes or reflagging options. Furthermore, since shark fisheries occur in international waters, shifting to other economic activities such as shark tourism is not an option. The economic fallout would disproportionately affect the sector. Shark fin exports alone represent a substantial annual revenue of 170 million euros. This income is crucial for an EU fleet already grappling with multiple crises and skyrocketing energy prices. In summary, a shark fishery without a permitted fin trade is not economically viable, as it constitutes approximately 50% of the income derived from the fishery. Policy Options: The first option No new action beyond what was announced in the Commission Communication of 5 July 2023 is confusing and frustrating. Recent decisions by international bodies such as RFMOs, CITES, BBNJ, CBD, and the adoption of the EU Fisheries Control Regulation will undoubtedly and positively impact shark conservation, sustainable use, trade, monitoring, surveillance and control of fleet operations. Therefore, policy option 1 should be framed as the implementation of innovative and effective policies. This approach should be recognized as the path forward, necessitating significant investments, capacity building and efforts from the supply chain and public authorities. Full position attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Francisco Guerreiro (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

26 Oct 2023 · NEAFC transposition

Meeting with Clara Aguilera (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

22 Feb 2023 · Fisheries control, Action Plan, Bluefin tuna, Nature restauration Law

Response to Energy transition of EU fisheries and aquaculture sector

5 Dec 2022

Europêche, the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises in the European Union, welcomes the effort for a coordinated and sufficient support into the energy transition of the EU fisheries sector. The biggest challenge facing the industry is the development and global availability of alternative and innovative green technologies and carbon-neutral fuels and energy sources. The production and deployment of such fuels and the necessary infrastructure is fundamental to make the transition a reality. Nonetheless, the transition to new propulsion technologies requires specific funding measures as well as larger space on board. Current capacity limitations of fishing vessels as set in the Common Fisheries Policy hinder such progress. The fishing industry wishes to express some elements of reflection on the subject.
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

20 Oct 2022 · To discuss and answer questions about the implementing regulation on vulnerable marine ecosystems

Response to Communication on the functioning of the Common Fisheries Policy

23 Sept 2022

Europêche would like to take the opportunity to further provide feedback on the functioning of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in light of current scientific developments, see the attached file.
Read full response

Meeting with Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius)

19 Sept 2022 · Current topical fisheries files

Meeting with Charlina Vitcheva (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

14 Sept 2022 · Discussion on Control Regulation

Response to Update of the EU Maritime Security Strategy and its Action Plan

8 Sept 2022

Europêche, the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises in the European Union, welcomed the EUMSS initiative with its determination towards the protection of our fleet, seas, and oceans, and since new maritime space actors and considerations came in play since 2014, the fishing industry wishes to express some elements of reflection on the subject. Please find them in the attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner)

19 Jul 2022 · To discuss various topical files related to fisheries management

Meeting with Grace O'Sullivan (Member of the European Parliament) and FUNDACION OCEANA

16 Jun 2022 · Implementation of the CFP and ongoing political discussion

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Comité national des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins and

8 Apr 2022 · Bottom trawling and preparation of the Action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

Meeting with Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius)

19 Nov 2021 · Disscusion on various key files concerning fisheries

EU Fishing Industry Urges Policy Coherence Over Bottom Trawl Restrictions

13 May 2021
Topic — Action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems under EU Biodiversity Strategy.
Message — The organization requests that bottom trawling not be phased out, that fisheries management be recognized as a conservation tool, and that environmental policies better integrate with the Common Fisheries Policy. They argue existing management has achieved significant improvements in fish stocks and that policy incoherence threatens sustainable fishing.123
Why — This would preserve their fishing rights and avoid phasing out 14,000 trawlers.45
Impact — Environmental groups lose stronger protections for seabed habitats and biodiversity.67
Read full response

Europêche Urges EU to Align Marine Rules With Fishing Policy

6 May 2021
Topic — This consultation evaluates the effectiveness of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
Message — The group argues that environmental rules should not override existing fishing policies. They advocate for recognizing fishing management as a conservation tool instead of simply closing off marine areas.12
Why — This would protect the industry from stricter catch limits and prevent loss of fishing grounds.34
Impact — Renewable energy and aquaculture projects might face stricter scrutiny for their habitat impacts.56
Read full response

Meeting with Charlina Vitcheva (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and Pelagic Freezer-trawler Association and

15 Apr 2021 · Arctic cod fisheries

Meeting with Charlina Vitcheva (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

17 Mar 2021 · Commission position on the revision of the control regulation

Response to Evaluation of SFPAs

25 Feb 2021

In short, Europêche recommends on SFPAs for the European Commission to: Be more ambitious in the negotiation and adoption of SFPAs considering their proven benefit of being the most transparent and sustainable fisheries agreements in the world mutually beneficial for both the EU and local communities; Revamp dormant agreements with third countries of interest for the fishing industry and/or denounce them if in the Protocol a given SFPA has not been in force for three years or more; Prepare for the renovation of SPFA and its Protocols as quick as possible to ensure smooth transition to the next agreements and avoid at any cost the non-renewal scenario, which is no longer foreseen under the temporary cessation provisions of the new EMFAF; Assist third countries, flag Member States and operators concerned to fulfil all the requirements and conditions set in EU law; Reduce and simplify administrative procedures and resolve technical problems of operators as swiftly as possible; Allocate sufficient human, technical, and financial resources to the implementation of SFPAs; Ensure that more favourable conditions are not granted to non-EU long distance fleets operating in third country EEZs concerning the conservation, development and management of resources, financial arrangements, and fees and rights relating to the issuing of fishing authorisations, whenever there is a SFPA in place (Art.31.6 CFP); Strengthen sustainable fisheries and ocean governance by linking SFPAs and other fisheries agreements to regional management policies and negotiations, and obtain coherence of SPFAs with Free Trade Agreements; Better take into consideration the flag state responsibilities under Article 94 of UNCLOS concerning social and safety at sea standards (i.e. flag state duties under the Law of the Sea Convention and e.g. Directives 97/70/EEC and 2017/159 and flag state requirements concerning training and certification of fishermen (STCWF-F 95)) in order to avoid legal conflicts and safety concerns; Fully transpose the social clause signed by EU Social Partners for Sea Fisheries aiming at ensuring decent working conditions for non-EU fishermen working on-board vessels operating through the SFPAs; and Increase third countries stakeholders’ and EU consumer awareness about the importance of SFPA. Debunk myths surrounding EU fishing operations in third countries.
Read full response

Response to Setting of nutrient profiles

3 Feb 2021

Summary Europêche and EAPO are of the opinion that the revision of the FIC regulation should fall within the remit of the Farm to Fork, Sea to Plate Strategy. Therefore, it should ensure that the environmental, socio-economic, and nutritional qualities of wild caught EU seafood products are recognised and put forward on front-of-pack nutrition labelling. These qualities are essential for reaching the EU climate and biodiversity targets, as well as reaching SDGs (specifically 2, 3, 8, 13, and 14) and should thus be recognised and made clear to the consumer. Subsequently, the FIC regulation should allow consumers to benefit from appropriate geographical information on the origin of the products bought regardless of whether these are fresh, frozen, canned, processed, and imported. The EU regulations guarantee socio-economic and environmental sustainability of EU products, consequently, the (flag state vessel and catch area) information on origin of products have to be made mandatory, empowering consumers to choose EU seafood products achieving high sustainability requirements. Please read the full feedback attached.
Read full response

Response to Green Recovery for the Blue Economy (tentative)

7 Dec 2020

Europêche and EAPO’s highlight that: 1) EU fisheries provide the healthiest animal protein globally with the lowest carbon footprint, making fish products fit with the EU environmental sustainability goals; 2) While the contribution to total carbon emissions by the maritime sector is less than 3%, the CO2 emissions from fishing continues to decrease to a 40% reduction compared to 1990 and the energetic efficiency (ton of fish/litter of fuel) of the sector continues to increase tremendously over the years; 3) Almost 100% of the landings from EU-regulated stocks come from catches fished at the MSY levels, and close to 80% of the fish consumed worldwide comes from sustainable stocks ; 4) Fishing provide jobs both at sea but also directly and indirectly on-shore, sustaining coastal communities, maritime regions’ economies, and providing livelihoods; 5) In 2018, 272,000 people were engaged in the primary European sector of fisheries in Europe, although suffering a significant employment reduction of 28% since 1995 ; 6) Knowledge gaps are still important regarding the effects of emerging Blue Economy activities. Integrated strategic impact assessments of the cumulative environmental and socio-economic consequences of those activities are key for them to truly contribute to the Green future; and 7) Fisheries depend on the good health of marine ecosystems to operate and are regulated through the Common Fisheries Policy, ensuring sustainable use of resources It is therefore recommendable to: 1) Work with a bottom-up approach, including all affected sectors when it comes to new Blue Economy activities and integrated maritime spatial planning; 2) Promote cooperation between different marine uses, and stakeholders contribution to science and obtaining data; 3) Safeguard adequate marine space to fisheries via Maritime Spatial Planning to maintain the important contribution to food security and food sovereignty while allowing flexibility to adapt to climate change and pollution effects; 4) Remind and inform consumers of the safe, healthy, and smart choice seafood offers and encourage consumers to buy and prepare sustainable seafood; Improve availability and harmonisation of socio-economic data by increasing the quantity and quality of the social indicators; 5) Apply mitigation measures before, during, and after the respective activity. 6) Develop guidelines on the implementation of mitigation measures to lower conflicts between the sectors; and 7) In line with the level playing field approach and the precautionary approach, operations in new areas shall be conditioned to ex-ante and ex-post environmental impact assessments for all Blue Economy sector activities, with due consideration to socio-economic impact analysis as well as cumulative effects. Please find the joint Europêche and EAPO feedback in attachment.
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

22 Jul 2020 · To discuss and exchange views on the Biodiversity Strategy, in particular on issues concerning fisheries and the protection and restoration of the marine environment.

Meeting with Charlina Vitcheva (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and European Association of Fish Producers Organisations

30 Jun 2020 · Introduction meeting to have an exchange of views on current issues

Response to Review of the marketing standards framework for fishery and aquaculture products

4 May 2020

Please find Europêche's feedback in the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Energy Tax Directive

31 Mar 2020

Please see attached document on behalf of Europêche
Read full response

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

16 Mar 2020

Europêche position on EU Farm to Fork Strategy Summary Fishing is the very definition of the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy since it is the most efficient, climate-smart system that provides healthy and sustainable food, while securing a decent living for EU fishermen. Climate and biodiversity: - Thanks to effective, science-based fisheries management focused on sustainability and responsible fishing, fish stock populations have been increasing in Europe while minimising the impact of the industry in marine ecosystems. Today, commercial fishing poses no threat for the long-term preservation of marine resources in the EU and has not ever caused the extinction of fish species in the oceans; - Wild caught fish, unlike other animal proteins, has the lowest environmental impact since it does not need any land, artificial feeding, use of water supply, antibiotics nor pesticides, and is thus the best option in terms of food security while protecting the climate; - The EU fishing fleet’s energetic efficiency (tonne of fish per litter of fuel) has increased tremendously over the years thanks to the adaptation of new technologies; - Fishermen address all types of waste coming from fishing vessels (and others) to minimise environmental impact, such as wastewater measures, passively and actively fishing for marine litter, sorting and managing waste at port. Regarding food waste, the sector needs an enhancement of logistics and infrastructure along the value chain to make the best use of all catches and optimise the food system’s sustainability. Consumer information, marketing standards and digitalisation: - EU consumers have a clear interest in the country of origin and the traceability of fishery products, however existing EU legislation does not oblige to provide the origin in the final prepared or preserved product, while this is mandatory for the catch industry. Information on traceability and the sustainable way of production is thus lost in the food value chain; - The traceability of fishery products through all stages of production, processing and distribution should be able to be qualified through marketing standards which should put an emphasis on the sustainability of the fishery product as mandated by the CFP; - Traceability is ensured by the digitalisation of catch reporting systems (logbooks) which will be further enhanced thanks to its extension to small-scale vessels, imports (digital catch certificates), and information to the consumer (e.g. blockchain); - Sustainability and social standards should be guaranteed at EU level via the Directive 2017/159 and marketing standards, since when trading in fishery products with third countries, these standards should be equivalent to those which apply to Union products. International trade: - EU efforts in making fishing sustainable are incompatible with importing products from certain non-EU countries with little concern for sustainability, far from the high standards the EU fishing sector has to comply with, resulting in an unlevelled playing field; - The EU calls on preserving biodiversity, reducing antibiotics and pesticides, and a move towards even higher sustainability standards, while boosting free trade agreements and importing huge numbers of products from non-EU countries which do not take this into account; - Countries linked to IUU fishing and serious labour abuses benefit from preferential EU market access, while the access of products that harm the marine environment and or fishermen’s rights should be banned; - Preferential trade agreements and autonomous tariff quotas (ATQs) must be solely used when there is no sufficient seafood supply for the EU market and cannot be intended to put pressure on EU producers their prices; - Tariff preferences (ATQs, GSP+) should only be granted to seafood products coming from countries with sustainable fisheries management; - EU IUU policy should be aligned with labour policy and free trade agreements must include reinforced chapters
Read full response

Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy

20 Jan 2020

No doubt the EU must lead global negotiations on a post-2020 global biodiversity framework under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in October 2020 in Kunming, China. The EU should build its leadership on the existing high-standards set in the Community legal and policy framework aimed to protect, restore and sustainably manage its natural habitats, species and ecosystems. However, any new EU commitment setting more ambitious goals should be based on the best available scientific advice and adopted in close collaboration with EU stakeholder. For this purpose, the European fishing industry hereby puts forward the following recommendations: • Fish populations, particularly in the North East Atlantic, are NOT at risk of extinction • In the last 20 years the biomass of assessed fish stocks has increased globally • Both biodiversity and food security will generally be better served by expanding effective fisheries management, not by establishing more no- take areas • The global myth that MPAs are the panacea to every ocean problem is misguided. A large proportion of MPAs in the EU are considered to lack effective management creating a dangerous illusion of protection (Milieu et al, 2016) • Effective and adaptive fisheries management bring higher yields to fishers & communities • If 30% of all ocean ecosystems (coastal and offshore) were strictly closed under MPAs (as recommended by IUCN): ¬ In rich countries, food shortage will need to be compensated by livestock (requiring deforestation) or from poorly managed fisheries (in the developing world) ¬ In densely populated coastal areas of poor countries, people’s livelihoods will be threatened generating social and political instability • The international community should focus efforts on the better implementation of existing environmental instruments See full position attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner)

11 Dec 2019 · To present and discuss the views on ongoing fisheries policy developments

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

24 Jul 2019 · CFP implementation, current challenges

Meeting with Andras Inotai (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella), Aurore Maillet (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

22 Jun 2018 · Marine plastic litter, lost fishing gear

Response to Evaluation of the Eel Regulation

11 May 2018

See the attached document for full justification. In short Europêche urges to maintain the present catch levels in the eel fisheries and proposes the following measures instead of any proposal for a total ban: • Better implementation of the eel management plans in Member States which fail to reach the targets of escaping silver eel; • More effort to terminate the illegal export of glass eel to Asia; • Reduction of the mortality and better management of the risk of eels being trapped in pumps and turbines; • Reduction of predation by birds; • Improvement of habitat quality for eel (removal of migration-blockers); • Improvement of research on reproduction of eel in farms We have a clear position against an eel fishery ban not only for the huge socio-economic impact but also because this would be counterproductive for eel restocking programmes. It must be stressed that the fishing sector is co-financing these restocking programmes. Instead of fishing bans we prefer a full implementation of the EU-Management plan for eel in all countries and not a horizontal punishment for all coastal fishermen engaged in eel recovery schemes.
Read full response

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and

20 Apr 2018 · Common Fisheries Policy, Ocean Governance

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

22 Feb 2018 · Exchange of views on implementation of the CFP and specific fisheries issues

Response to Negotiation mandate for EU Accession to the North Pacific Fisheries Convention (NPFC)

14 Feb 2018

Europêche position on the negotiation mandate for EU accession to the North Pacific Fisheries Convention (NPFC) Background The EU is actively involved in international bodies known as Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) in order to strengthen the coherence with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) external dimension as well as to advance the EU interests. EU Member States (particularly Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Poland) have been cooperating on sustainable fishery for small pelagic species in South Pacific in the framework of the Southern Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), establishing and maintaining EU presence in the area. Also Latvia and Spain have shown great interest in the matter. Subsequently, as requested by these EU Member States and the Council, the Commission has proposed the accession of the EU to the North Pacific Fisheries Convention in pursuance of the EU fleet gaining access to the fishery resources managed by the body established by the Convention, namely the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC). This will help promoting the objectives and principles set in the CFP, but also to ensure the sustainable exploitation, management and conservation of the marine biological resources located in that area. Industry considerations  A matter of urgency Taking into account the interest of Member States in the NPFC and the present EU pelagic fleet activity in the Pacific region, it is fundamental for these companies to start their fishing operations in the NPFC convention area as of 1st July 2018. Considering the aforementioned situation and the need to establish the future Member States / EU rights within the NPFC, it is a matter of urgency to finalize the process of the EU becoming a member of the North Pacific Fisheries Commission as soon as possible.  To have coherent annual fish plans It is apparent that member countries of the SPRFMO are also becoming active members of the NPFC with the aim that their pelagic fishing fleets can complete their annual fish plan in the region by adding fisheries in the NPFC convention area to their fisheries in the SPRFMO convention area.  To become global actors As the EU fleet is already cooperating on sustainable fishery further south in the neighbouring RFMO, the SPRFMO, EU operators in Germany, Lithuania, Poland and the Netherlands are pursuing to broaden their fishing operations to the North Pacific to further solidify themselves as global actors and promote economies of scale. Currently, without the EU presence, the EU vessels are not able to operate in the high seas and therefore not able to harvest the resources managed by the NPFC.  To enhance responsible fisheries management The EU presence in the area will not only benefit the long-term sustainability of the stocks, but also support the scientific research in line with the CFP external objectives. For instance, EU’s high standards of fisheries management has significantly contributed to the establishment and implementation of responsible fisheries management for small pelagics in the South Pacific in constructive agreement with the coastal and flag states concerned. Moreover, the EU industry has from the start of its presence in the area actively contributed to the scientific research on jack mackerel, for example by means of the successful self-sampling program on EU vessels. Conclusion Europêche recognizes the complexity of the accession process of the European Union to the NPFC. However, the industry urges the need for effective steps taken by the EU institutions to secure the possibility for the EU fleet to commence fishing activities in the region of NPFC as of 1st July 2018. Possibly the fastest way to achieve this is a two-step approach by which the EU becomes in first instance a cooperating non contracting party with the expressed ambition to become full member of the NPFC soon afterwards.
Read full response

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner)

19 Jul 2017 · Ocean Governance, Our Ocean Conference 2017, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements, RFMOs

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and

5 May 2017 · Ocean Governance, Landing obligation, Management plans, Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, Our Ocean Conference 2017

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and European Association of Fish Producers Organisations

14 Feb 2017 · General exchange ov views on the implementation of the CFP / new organization of DG MARE

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and WWF European Policy Programme and

18 Oct 2016 · Shipping of Shark Products

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

9 Mar 2016 · Deep Sea Regulation

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner)

8 Feb 2016 · Blue Whiting

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

19 Nov 2015 · Implementation CFP, TACs and Quotas 2016

Meeting with Andras Inotai (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

11 Jun 2015 · State Aid, Autonomous Tariff Quotas for fishery products, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner)

12 Dec 2014 · Common Fisheries Policy (fishing opportunities, landing obligation, driftnets, deep sea access, technical measures, sustainable fisheries partnership agreements)