OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Cooperatie Kottervisserij Nederland (VisNed)

VisNed

Belangenbehartiging Nederlandse beroepsvisserij op demersale bestanden.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and

7 Apr 2025 · Stakeholder session on EU and third countries including food security, transition of the fleet, spatial planning and innovation

Meeting with Bert-Jan Ruissen (Member of the European Parliament) and Pelagic Freezer-trawler Association

6 Dec 2024 · Fisheries

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises in the European Union and

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

Response to Action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

13 May 2021

VisNed supports the content of the contributions to this public consultation by both Europêche and EAPO. In addition VisNed stresses that the Commissi0n seeks a rather broad brush approach, whilst the specific situation in the North Sea calls for a tailor made approach. The North Sea is not only one of the most intense used sea basins (oil & gas, shipping, defense, sand extraction, coastal defense, renewable energy, to name just a few of the activities) , areas, but also one of the most productive seas. Fishing in the North Sea is being performed at the level of MSY and the SSB’s are at levels which can be categorized as ‘very healthy’. Although we do not deny problems with both Seabass and Cod. Bottom trawling is mentioned as an activity damaging to the seabed. In the context of the North Sea, this claim is an unsubstantiated an too generic statement. In this respect we ask attention for an plethora of ICES studies which provide nuance to the generalization leading to a negative approach as communicated in the roadmap. Bottom trawling provides for supply sustainable seafood (increasingly MSC certified) with a low carbon footprint. Bottom trawling undeniably has an impact, but this cannot be categorized as ‘damaging’. We fully support the call for increasing selectivity and reduce the use of fishing gear most harmful to the seabed. In this respect we stress that ‘the seabed’ as such does not exists, the approach must be focused at the fishing gear/habitat interactions, whereby sensitive habitats must be protected against damaging influences whilst it is recognized that the robust habitats subject to highly dynamic circumstances will be judged differently. The matrix of habitat/ fishing gear interactions is a most useful tool in this respect. In relation to the above we ask again attention for the scientific underpinning of the transition from beam trawl to pulse gear, increasing selectivity and reducing bottom impact and fuel consumption leading to reduced carbon emissions. VisNed recognizes that MPA’s can have a positive effect in the process of reaching good environmental status. But at the same time VisNed repeats its plea for an informed discussion taking into consideration all scientific evidence. VisNed is not in agreement with the claim of economic gains resulting from MPA’s. VisNed supports the call for improved availability and quality of knowledge. In certain cases the precautionary approach seems to be the only correct line of approach. In this respect we again mention the lack of knowledge on the long term effects as well as the cumulative effects of the large scale roll out of renewable energy from the sea, more specific wind at sea. VisNed supports the call for evidence based discussions, we welcome the inclusion of the Advisory Councils, but call upon the Commission to support the work of the AC’s with additional budget to realise scientific underpinning of the AC advice and opinions. We also stress that scientific advice must be based on the work of ICES, including the peer reviewing and quality assurance process. In this respect VisNed urges the Commission to give preference of engaging ICES over STECF, because of the structured way of the advice process, including the quality assurance mechanisms. VisNed looks forward to engage in a dialogue on developing conrete plans to bring this Action Plan further, to the benefit of the ecosystem, as well as to the benefit of fishers, their families en the fisheries communities.
Read full response

Response to Contingency plan for ensuring food supply and food security

7 Jan 2021

Ik ben directeur van VisNed en vertegenwoordig kottervissers. Als landelijke vereniging voor de kottervisserij juichen wij het initiatief voor de ontwikkeling van een noodplan voor de voedselvoorziening en voedselzekerheid in de EU van harte toe. Wij hebben tijdens de COVID-19 pandemie veel waardering gekregen voor het snelle en adequate handelen van de lidstaat Nederland en de bereidheid binnen de EU voor steun in deze onzekere periode. Wij zouden graag zien dat erkende brancheorganisaties een vaste plek krijgen in het permanente forum, dat genoemd wordt in de Roadmap. Continuïteit van familiebedrijven in tijden van crisis is essentieel, deze MKB bedrijven zijn de pijlers waar visserijgemeenschappen op bouwen en worden gekenmerkt door een hoge mate van flexibiliteit, wat enerzijds vaak een redding is, maar niet gezien moet worden als oplossing voor langdurige economische terugval. Europese steunpakketten, zoals ook in de COVID-19 pandemie zijn ingezet, zijn daarvoor een passende en effectieve maatregel. In het geval van een directe marktimpact kan er door erkende Producenten Organisaties snel gehandeld worden in de balans tussen vraag en aanbod, mits deze PO’s daarvoor voldoende capaciteit hebben, wij zien daarom graag terug dat PO’s ondersteund worden in professionalisering en versterking. Wij willen benadrukken dat de visserij een internationale aangelegenheid is. Naast dat vangstmogelijkheden te allen tijden moeten worden gegarandeerd (de mogelijkheid om uit te varen) is het ook van belang om oog te hebben voor communicatie en afstemming ten aanzien van grensovergangen. Daarbij is het zo dat het noodplan zich beperkt tot de EU, waar we graag zouden zien dat ook de verbanden met relevante (keten)partijen buiten de EU worden gekend in het noodplan, zoals eventuele implicaties van crises in niet-EU landen. De wederzijdse afhankelijkheid tussen Nederland en Marokko op het vlak van garnalenverwerking is hier een voorbeeld van.
Read full response

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

15 Jan 2019 · Discard Plans, Pulse Fishing

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

26 Jun 2018 · Landing Obligation

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

14 Nov 2017 · Landing obligation / pulse fishing

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (First Vice-President)

6 Nov 2017 · Nederlandse visserijsector

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (First Vice-President) and Pelagic Freezer-trawler Association

6 Nov 2017 · discussion on the future of EU fisheries

Response to Interservice consultation on a Commission proposal for the GES Decision

12 Oct 2016

We acknowledge the need to make Decision 2010/477/EU more clear, concise and coherent; and recognise this draft decision is an improvement. However, there is a substantial need to develop additional scientific understanding as well as appropriate methodologies to assess GES. Currently, scientific organisations are still preparing advice on ecosystem functioning, interpretation of criteria and appropriateness of methods to assess GES. We are concerned Member States lack clear (scientific) guidance to coordinate the implementation of realistic and achievable threshold values. D3C2 refers to achieving a spawning stock biomass (SSB) above biomass levels capable of producing MSY. The Decision document states: “the threshold value used shall be in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013”. In a multispecies contexts stocks cannot all be at (or above) Bmsy at the same time. Natural factors may affect recruitment and stocks will influence each other as a result of predator-prey interactions. The ICES MSY approach explicitly excludes Bmsy as a potential threshold value to be obtained for all assessed species. If the aim of the MSFD is to have all stocks achieving GES Bmsy as a threshold value is unrealistic. The Commission agrees the current indicators for D3C3 should not be used as part of the GES assessment in 2018. Reference levels require further development before these become applicable in the GES framework. In our opinion the development of a selectivity indicator seems redundant as F, when based on Fmsy, already accounts for the currently operated selectivity of the fisheries. Fmsy is modified as the selectivity pattern changes across time within the assessment and benchmarking process. In addition, in a mixed fisheries context, multiple species are exploited simultaneously. These species have differing growth rates and maximum length, and juveniles of the larger species are caught within the small species fishery. For many fisheries the spatial overlap of target species will not allow for the optimisation of selectivity for all stocks simultaneously. If this selectivity indicator were to be applied as a GES criterion, either the larger species would be in a permanent status of GES non-compliance or smaller species would not be caught by the gear but the yield (revenue) from them would be lost. D4 states: “not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures”. It is difficult to distinguish if changes in the ecosystem arise from anthropogenic or natural causes. Many food web indicators show weak/indirect links to human pressure and may show substantial variation due to factors not related to anthropogenic activities. In general, many descriptors refer to “natural” population or extend of habitat. However, the text is missing a clear definition for a "natural” population or extend of habitat? Natural fluctuations and human actions have influenced the ecosystem throughout history, which baseline is chosen to define what is “natural”? We note there is still a lack of understanding as to how criteria and environmental targets should be made operational; creating much uncertainty on what exactly good environmental status would look like. As such, this uncertainty will result in speculative and aimless policy which will have unnecessary socio-economic costs. The MSFD is a complex directive including multiple criteria and thresholds which potentially can have a direct and significant impact on future fishing activities. Therefore, we attach great importance to stakeholder participation and welcome the opportunity to provide feedback to this draft decision document. However, time to respond is often limited and it's unclear how responses from stakeholder are being taken into account. Feedback on this process would be appreciated.
Read full response