OpenLobby.EU
Explore

FUNDACION OCEANA

OCEANA

Oceana is the largest international organization focused on ocean conservation, campaigning to protect and restore the world's oceans.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Sven Langedijk (Head of Unit Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and Federación española de Industrias de Alimentación y Bebidas and Unknown Organization

10 Dec 2025 · Consumer information and labelling, in particular in relation to the CMO regulation

Meeting with Vita Jukne (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and ClientEarth AISBL and Seas At Risk

8 Dec 2025 · Implementation of marine/nature laws; MSFD revision and the upcoming European Ocean Act

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and

7 Nov 2025 · Participation of NGOs to Advisory Councils

Meeting with Jérôme Broche (Head of Unit Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

15 Oct 2025 · Oceana report ‘Engines under control – the challenge of putting an end to fishing vessel engine power fraud in the Spanish Mediterranean’.

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and

14 Oct 2025 · General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Oceana warns carbon capture risks destroying marine ecosystems

11 Sept 2025
Topic — The EU is developing a legislative framework for CO2 transportation and markets.
Message — Oceana opposes the EU's carbon capture push due to high costs. They favor renewable energy over risky offshore storage infrastructure.12
Why — Stopping offshore carbon storage protects marine life from acidification and construction.3
Impact — Fossil fuel companies lose their justification for continued offshore oil exploration.4
Read full response

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

5 Sept 2025 · Meeting on the EU’s fisheries external action and policy observations related to a vessel case

Meeting with Mélissa Camara (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)

2 Sept 2025 · BBNJ

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

21 Aug 2025

CONTENT: ARTICLE 52 AND THE ROLE OF AIS. Article 52 establishes the process for the validation and cross-checking of fisheries data. The validation procedures focus on internal consistency between logbooks, VMS, landing declarations, and other standard documents. However, Automatic Identification System (AIS) data is notably missing from the list of mandatory cross-checks. AIS is increasingly recognised as a critical and complementary source of information alongside VMS, especially for detecting irregular vessel behaviour, identifying potential non-compliance, and addressing cases of AIS deactivation. Incorporating AIS into the validation framework would significantly enhance the ability of control authorities to identify suspicious activities, such as unauthorised fishing or tracking gaps. We therefore recommend that Article 52(2) be amended to add the following point: (l) AIS data shall be cross-checked against VMS and logbook data to detect discrepancies in vessel location and activity, including any potential gaps in tracking, inconsistencies in speed or direction, or signs of intentional disabling of tracking systems. This addition is essential to support the effective implementation of Article 10.3 of the revised Fisheries Control Regulation (as amended by Regulation 2023/2842), which clearly requires that: Member States shall ensure that data from the AIS are made available to their competent authorities responsible for fisheries control for control purposes, including cross-checks of AIS data with other available data. Failing to reflect this obligation in the Implementing Act would be a missed opportunity to operationalise a key control tool already acknowledged in the basic act. DG MARE PROCEDURAL RIGHT TO ADOPT THE IMPLEMENTING ACT. Oceana supports the revised Control Regulation and its associated Acts as essential instruments to improve monitoring, transparency, and accountability in EU fisheries management. Many of the provisions included in the current proposal have been in place since the 2011 Implementing Regulation and should therefore be implementable without major difficulty. In light of recent discussions questioning the Commissions competence to adopt certain technical provisions, we believe it is important to recall the legal principles underpinning this process: (1) Article 291 of the TFEU gives the Commission the competence to adopt implementing measures where an EU legislative act so requires. In the case of the Fisheries Control Regulation, the basic act itself provides for the adoption of implementing measures in areas such as fishing logbooks, weighing, traceability, or electronic data transmission. (2) The Commission is entitled to clarify technical and operational elements through implementing acts, as long as they do not modify essential aspects of the basic regulation. This includes provisions that may not be explicitly mentioned in the base text but are consistent with its objectives and legal framework. (3) We recognise the value of conducting socio-economic and environmental impact assessments when designing policies. However, in the case of implementing acts, unlike legislative acts or, in some cases, delegated acts, requiring an impact assessment could distort their intended function and unnecessarily delay the adoption of operational and technical rules needed to ensure harmonised fisheries control and enforcement across the EU. (4) We welcome the efforts made to involve Member States through the comitology process, as well as the Commissions willingness to seek input from stakeholders through public consultations such as this one. can contribute valuable technical input that helps improve the quality and practicality of the implementing measures adopted. For these reasons, we strongly support the adoption of the proposed Implementing Act, which represents a necessary and proportionate step to ensure the effective implementation of the revised EU fisheries control system.
Read full response

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

7 Aug 2025

Oceana supports the Control Regulation and the associated Delegated Act as important tools to improve the monitoring, accountability, and sustainability of EU fisheries. Many of the provisions in the Delegated Act have been in place since the 2011 Implementing Regulation and should therefore be implementable without major difficulty. Below, we provide comments on two key articles. 1) VMS. Article 6.2 of the Delegated Act should be broadened to ensure that VMS data are not underutilized and that the reference to VMS data being only used for official purposes is not interpreted too narrowly by Member States. VMS data are a cornerstone of vessel monitoring and fisheries control, but their potential extends far beyond enforcement and scientific purposes. When safeguarded appropriately to protect confidentiality and commercial sensitivity, these data can be used to improve the management, transparency, and accountability of fishing activities. Experience from regions such as Conil (Spain) shows that access to VMS data by fishing and environmental organisations, under appropriate agreements, has directly contributed to better fisheries management. When combined with catch reporting, vessel tracking data can offer a comprehensive picture of fishing activities (including areas fished, time spent at sea, targeted stocks, and quantities landed). In co-management contexts, fishers have used these data to map valuable fishing grounds and species distribution, monitor and optimise fishing effort to reduce pressure on stocks, improve business planning and fishery profitability, promote sustainable fishing practices and enhance local marketing. Such initiatives have allowed fishers to fish less, but better, contributing to the sustainable management of marine resources. Therefore, we recommend that Article 6.2(b) be revised as follows: "(b) take all necessary measures to ensure that they are used for official purposes, including, as appropriate, for control, enforcement, compliance assessment, scientific research, environmental monitoring, and fisheries management. Member States shall also facilitate, under appropriate safeguards, access to VMS data for relevant stakeholders, including fishers' organisations, co-management committees, and civil society organisations, in support of improved fisheries management, transparency and accountability." 2) Traceability. Regarding traceability data (article 11), the proposal modifies certain provisions on mandatory traceability information, stating that in the case of fish product lots composed of several species, it would only be necessary to identify the three main species (instead of all of them) and indicate the total volume of the lot (instead of the weight of each individual species). Allowing only the top 3 species by weight to be identified and removing species-specific quantity requirements (and making paragraph 5(i) inapplicable) could create loopholes, especially for industrial operations mixing IUU or unsorted catch into composite lots. This may reduce the ability of authorities and supply chain actors to verify that fish come from legal and sustainable sources. Moreover, article 11.3 doesnt mention who can access this digital information or under what conditions. Authorities, civil society organisations, and even consumers should have access to parts of this traceability data, especially when sustainability or origin claims are made.
Read full response

Meeting with Eva Maria Carballeira Fernandez (Head of Unit Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and ClientEarth AISBL and

15 Jul 2025 · Recommendations on how to address shortcomings in the ICES advice and requests

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and Greenpeace European Unit and

10 Jul 2025 · Review of the Common Fisheries Policy, Oceans Pact, and future situation of the fishing activity and marine environment

Meeting with Milena Mihaylova (Head of Unit Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

7 Jul 2025 · Exchange of views on the West Med MAP in Malta.

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

23 Jun 2025 · Dossiers pêche

Meeting with Patrick Child (Deputy Director-General Environment) and

3 Jun 2025 · Exchange of views on LIFE

Meeting with Eoin Mac Aoidh (Acting Head of Unit Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and ClientEarth AISBL and Seas At Risk

22 May 2025 · Exchange of views on the Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation and vade mecum on allocation of fishing opportunities by Member States

Meeting with Axel Hellman (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall), Pernille Weiss-Ehler (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and

20 May 2025 · Ocean Pact and Water Resilience

Meeting with Axel Hellman (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall), Pernille Weiss-Ehler (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and

20 May 2025 · Exchange of views on the upcoming Ocean Pact and Water Resilience Strategy

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and

13 May 2025 · Bottom Trawling in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Meeting with Mélissa Camara (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Mar 2025 · CFP

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and

17 Mar 2025 · Presentation of Oceana and discussion of priorities

Meeting with Milena Mihaylova (Head of Unit Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

21 Feb 2025 · Wester Mediterranean

Oceana demands legally binding targets for European ocean health

17 Feb 2025
Topic — The European Oceans Pact creates a coherent framework for EU ocean-related policies and blue economy.
Message — Oceana calls for the Ocean Pact to include legally binding protection targets and a roadmap for 2030. They also advocate for a dedicated EU Ocean Fund to support a transition to low-impact fishing.12
Why — Legally binding targets would ensure Member States are held accountable for marine conservation progress.3
Impact — Industrial fishing operators lose access to protected waters currently open to destructive bottom trawling.4
Read full response

Meeting with Ana Vasconcelos (Member of the European Parliament)

6 Feb 2025 · European Ocean Pact

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

14 Jan 2025 · Meeting with representatives of BirdLife Europe, ClientEarth, Oceana, Seas At Risk, Surfrider Foundation and the WWF Europe to present the upcoming Oceans Pact and civil society interaction.

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Jan 2025 · Ocean Pact

Meeting with Charlina Vitcheva (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and World Wide Fund for Nature Belgium

11 Dec 2024 · “Follow the Fish” statement dated September 2024: traceability and crucial consumer information like species, origin, fishing gear, and production. Meeting with Oceana and WWF, CFFA, Fish Tales.

Meeting with Mélissa Camara (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme

11 Dec 2024 · Follow the Fish

Meeting with Thomas Bajada (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme and

3 Dec 2024 · Event on Seafood Labelling

Meeting with Mélissa Camara (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

14 Nov 2024 · SFPA Guinea Bissau

Meeting with Sebastian Everding (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Nov 2024 · New commission / Exchange of Views C. Kadis

Response to Autonomous Tariff Quotas Regulation

29 Oct 2024

For Oceana, it is crucial to require sustainability criteria for the Autonomous Tariff Quota scheme to align tariff-free access with the environmental and social sustainability goals of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular its goal (and that of the Common Market Organisation Regulation) to supply the EU market with sustainable seafood. Moreover, ensuring that all imported products meet high standards for sustainability will support the competitiveness of EU fisheries and address growing consumer demand for sustainable seafood. Oceana calls on the Commission to require sustainability criteria for all seafood imports, and to not only address this issue for the products covered by the ATQ Regulation. ATQ currently allows products from source countries with high IUU fishing risk indexes, such as China, Thailand, Vietnam or Indonesia, to access the EU market tariff-free, despite evidence of non-sustainable environmental and/or social practices. To rectify this, Oceana has the following recommendations: Environmental criteria should be central to the ATQ scheme. Applying the sustainability indicators developed by STECF would be an effective first step in this regard. These indicators assess the impact of fishing gear on the seabed and the status of fish stocks, offering scores based on sustainability performance. Oceana recommends restricting or excluding products with low scores from the ATQ system, such as those originating from overexploited stocks. Similar indicators developed by STECF for aquaculture products could also be used. Countries subject to import restrictions as per Regulation 1026/2012 should not benefit from the ATQ scheme. In addition, in order to benefit from the ATQ scheme countries should have ratified the UNCLOS, UNFSA and FAO Compliance Agreement, and be a member of the relevant RFMO managing the stocks imported under the ATQ. The ATQ must exclude seafood imports with a high risk of IUU fishing, including by excluding imports from countries at risk of being identified as a non-cooperating country in the fight against IUU fishing (yellow-carded countries under the EU IUU Regulation). Sustainability criteria should also include social aspects, such as working conditions and forced labor. This is in line with the EU's Control Regulation, where forced labour is considered a serious infringement. As seen in investigations like The Outlaw Ocean, EU companies including a supplier of the European Parliament were importing seafood from China with possible links to human rights violations. The Long-Distance Advisory Council recommended allowing the suspension of ATQs until the country is shown to be fulfilling its obligations to prevent and address human rights violations. Countries benefiting from ATQs should have ratified the eight fundamental ILO Conventions with a specific focus on the Work in Fishing Convention. Similarly, ratification of the Port State Measures Agreement and Cape Town Agreement should be considered. The ratification of these agreements will mitigate the risks of human rights abuse and unsafe conditions and ensure the legality of fish supply. To facilitate a level playing field for European operators, it is important that traceability is required for all seafood products. As per the Control Regulation, the EU must strengthen traceability requirements for preserves and prepared seafood products (1604 and 1605). We call on the EU to require similar traceability for these products as for fresh and frozen products and to include this minimum traceability information in the feasibility study. Most of this information is already collected in catch certificates and processing statements. To strengthen competitiveness and respond to EU consumer demand, consumer information should cover all seafood products including, and include details on the fishing area/production country, species name, flag state, fishing gear as well as environmental information.
Read full response

Meeting with Eric Sargiacomo (Member of the European Parliament) and Seas At Risk

16 Oct 2024 · PCP, accord pêche UE-Guinée Bissau

Meeting with Michal Wiezik (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme and

15 Oct 2024 · Ocean Pact

Meeting with Emma Wiesner (Member of the European Parliament) and ClientEarth AISBL and Seas At Risk

1 Oct 2024 · Lansering av rapport & panelsamtal

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Oct 2024 · Océan et pêche

Meeting with Sebastian Everding (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Oct 2024 · Introductory meeting - Ocean Week

Meeting with Mélissa Camara (Member of the European Parliament) and Stichting BirdLife Europe and Seas At Risk

10 Sept 2024 · Réunion de présentation de leurs travaux

Response to Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy

6 Sept 2024

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) contains robust management objectives fit for the purpose of ensuring the sustainable exploitation of fish resources and alignment with other EU policies. Challenges largely stem from poor implementation of its provisions, rather than flaws in the CFP itself. Addressing these shortcomings is crucial before considering any revision of the CFPs regulation. While the CFP lacks binding measures on issues like climate crisis, social objectives, transparency, and the post-Brexit landscape, these can be addressed within the existing framework or through complementary legal instruments. Oceana advocates for exploring all solutions to address these deficiencies without opening the CFP to reform, as even a targeted revision could broaden the scope of changes, leading to a comprehensive overhaul of the policy. Such a process risks undoing effective provisions and delaying action needed to safeguard fish stocks and fisheries in Europe. - The binding Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) objective (Article 2) with its clear timeline has provided legal certainty and reduced fishing mortality rates towards sustainable levels, leading to an increase in fish stock biomass. However, the deadline to achieve sustainable exploitation rates for all stocks has not been met, requiring further efforts to fulfil legal obligations and end overfishing. - Instead of delivering a decentralized approach tailored to each sea basin or fishery, Multiannual Plans (Articles 9 and 10) and Regionalisation (Article 18) have undermined the CFPs objectives. MAPs have weakened MSY provisions, instead of offering a multi-year holistic perspective, and joint recommendations under regionalization have become legal mechanisms for Member States to seek exemptions from the landing obligation, rather than reducing unwanted catches. - The coherence between fisheries management and environmental obligations (Article 11) is lacking, particularly in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), many of which remain subject to destructive fishing. The slow and uneven application of Article 11, coupled with unclear roles and deadlines, has hindered progress. To meet EU Biodiversity Strategy goals, new legislation or initiatives are crucial to align fisheries with environmental obligations. The Commission should also use emergency measures (Article 12) to expedite precautionary conservation measures, like banning bottom trawling in all benthic MPAs. - Non-compliance with the landing obligation (Article 15) is widespread, posing significant risks to the sustainability of EU fisheries and raising ethical considerations. Setting fishing opportunities based on catch rather than landings advice, while illegal discarding continues, allows for catches that can exceed sustainable exploitation rates. The landing obligation is not being given a fair chance to succeed, and the transition to more selective, low-impact fishing, remains incomplete. - Member States continue to overlook the need for a fair and transparent allocation of fishing opportunities (Article 17), to advance sustainable EU fisheries. The opaqueness of the current process, which relies on historical catches, rather than objective criteria incorporating environmental, social, and economic factors, perpetuates inequalities and fails to incentivize sustainable practices. A fair and transparent allocation of fishing opportunities is crucial for enhancing the social dimensions of fisheries, promoting employment and supporting local communities, as well as for mitigating the environmental and climate impacts of fishing. - The implementation of the external dimension (Articles 28-32) must be strengthened to ensure that all EU fishing activities, including those under foreign-flagged but EU-owned vessels, do not contribute to overfishing and adhere to robust environmental and social standards. Please find attached Oceana´s detailed response to the European Commissions call for evidence for the CFP evaluation.
Read full response

Meeting with Anja Hazekamp (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Sept 2024 · Bespreking prioriteitne PECH voor nieuwe mandaat

Meeting with Agne Razmislaviciute-Palioniene (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius), Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and

28 May 2024 · Decarbonisation process of fisheries

Meeting with Agne Razmislaviciute-Palioniene (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius), Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and

21 May 2024 · To listen to the insight provided in the Make Fishing Fair letter, in particular related to the call on the Commission to make fishing fair and to support practices better for people and planet by reallocating resources and opportunities

Meeting with Ruth Reichstein (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

1 Mar 2024 · Ocean policies in the European Green Deal

Meeting with Malte Gallée (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Feb 2024 · Lobby practices with regard to packaging legislation in the EU

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

19 Feb 2024 · NGOs presented to the Commissioner their Manifesto: An Ocean of Change 2024, and in particular the idea of an Ocean Deal

Meeting with Francisco Guerreiro (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and The Pew Charitable Trusts and

11 Oct 2023 · NEAFC transposition

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

8 Sept 2023 · Fishing opportunities and Marine Protection (taken by assistant)

Response to Sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2024

3 Aug 2023

On behalf of BirdLife International, Blue Marine Foundation, ClientEarth, Dutch Elasmobranch Society, Ecologistas en Acción, Fair Seas Ireland, Oceana, Sciaena, Seas At Risk, The Fisheries Secretariat, and WWF, please find in the attachment our response to the 2023 European Commission's public consultation on the progress towards achieving more sustainable fisheries, the state of fish stocks and the setting of fishing opportunities.
Read full response

Meeting with Pierre Karleskind (Member of the European Parliament) and Seas At Risk and

11 Jul 2023 · écosystèmes marins

Meeting with Maria da Graça Carvalho (Member of the European Parliament)

22 Jun 2023 · energy transition of EU fisheries, EU policies and measures to tackle high energy prices for fishermen, uptake of innovative technologies

Meeting with Rosa D'Amato (Member of the European Parliament) and ClientEarth AISBL

20 Jun 2023 · Energy Transition of the fisheries sector

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

22 May 2023 · Fisheries control

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

15 May 2023 · To discuss the Marine Action Plan

Meeting with Catherine Chabaud (Member of the European Parliament) and Low Impact Fishers of Europe and Patagonia Europe Coöperatief

20 Mar 2023 · Event "Ocean Solutions for a Bright Blue Future: The stories of oceans protectors

Meeting with Predrag Fred Matić (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Mar 2023 · Nature restoration - APA level meeting

Meeting with Francisco José Millán Mon (Member of the European Parliament) and Seas At Risk

27 Feb 2023 · Nature Restoration Law

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

20 Feb 2023 · To explain the “Fisheries and Oceans “ package adopted during that week: CFP Communication, Marine Action Plan and Decarbonisation Initiative.

Response to Fitness check of how the Polluter Pays Principle is applied to the environment

11 Dec 2022

Even a quick assessment of the implementation of EU policies designed to tackle ocean pollution reveals that the Polluter Pays Principle is not being sufficiently applied and that a significant gap remains: EU policy does not make the polluter pay for the environmental damage done by pervasive litter in the marine environment and the ongoing entry of plastic waste into the ocean.
Read full response

Meeting with Pierre Karleskind (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair) and Stichting BirdLife Europe

6 Dec 2022 · Politique commune de la pêche

Response to Energy transition of EU fisheries and aquaculture sector

5 Dec 2022

All economic sectors, including the fishing sector, have a responsibility to contribute to climate change mitigation. So, Oceana welcomes the proposal by the Commission to adopt an action plan to accelerate the energy transition of the EU fisheries sector. This energy transition must focus on reducing the fisheries sector's energy needs and fossil-fuel dependence and on increasing its use of clean, alternative, and renewable energy sources to make the sector resilient, carbon neutral, and socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable.The proposal should also be in line with the EU's objectives under the European Green Deal that aims for the EU to be resource-efficient and carbon neutral by 2050, as well as its ambition to promote environmentally sustainable, resource-efficient, innovative, competitive, and science-based fisheries underscored in the EU's Common Fisheries Policy. EU fisheries rely on high fuel consumption, contribute to atmospheric GHG emissions, and are often unprofitable without subsidies. The situation has been worsened by the recent geopolitical events in 2022, causing higher energy prices (fuel prices are a major driver of the economic performance of the fishing sector) and shedding light on the sectors energy dependence from external and often undemocratic sources.Oceana urges the Commission to propose short-term and long-term technical and strategic solutions to reduce fossil fuel dependence and fuel use by EU fishing fleets to reduce atmospheric GHG emissions and transition the EU fishing fleet towards a sustainable, low-impact, and energy-efficient sector.The strategy should focus, as a priority, on electrifying the EU fleet and reducing fuel use from the fishing sector by modifying existing fuel-intensive and energy inefficient fishing techniques and preventing the most harmful fishing activities (particularly bottom-towed gears) from placing pressures on blue habitats.The strategy should explore the many existing fuel-saving technological options, which can be upscaled in the fisheries sector. Fuel-saving through technical means can be achieved via changes to vessel structure and onboard equipment (e.g., alternative refrigerants and fuels), fishing operation (e.g., route optimization), and changes to fishing gear (to more passive gears with less impact on the seabed, reducing hydrodynamic drag and improving catch efficiency). Readily available fuel-saving technical solutions should be integrated into the strategy, including fuel savings from modifying how fleets operate, such as by limiting vessel steaming time, drag duration and speed. This strategy should be underpinned by robust policies to phase out fossil fuel use and move to electrifying the fleet and impose stricter carbon and fuel taxes. Complemented by other management techniques to help incentivise the least fuel-dependent fishing methods and the development of alternative low impact fishing methods. Efforts to reduce fuel use and its emissions must be complementary to efforts to protect and increase resilience and minimise disturbance to the marine environment and blue habitats. Bottom trawling is the most fuel-intensive fishery and affects the seabed, its carbon storage, and vulnerable benthic habitats through sediment resuspension and habitat degradation. Investment should be made into researching the impacts of fisheries on carbon storage habitats, incentivising alternative gear away from bottom trawling and phasing out the most fuel-intensive fishing technique, bottom trawlers, from the EU Fleet.Healthy fish populations are essential to maintaining ecosystem integrity and function, which also has the expected benefit of reducing fuel use during fishing operations and leading to greater revenue from catching larger, commercial species for the same quota. The strategy should ensure energy transition actions secure the recovery and safeguard of fish populations and avoid further pressure on overexploited fish resources.
Read full response

Meeting with Mick Wallace (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

1 Dec 2022 · Nature Restoration Law

Meeting with Caroline Roose (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Oct 2022 · Mise en oeuvre du règlement INN (assistant·e·s)

Meeting with César Luena (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

25 Oct 2022 · Nature Restoration Law

Meeting with Rosa D'Amato (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Oct 2022 · EU mission to the GFCM

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and ClientEarth AISBL and

14 Oct 2022 · Implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the preparation of the Action Plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

Meeting with Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius), Elena Montani (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and

14 Oct 2022 · Implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the preparation of the Action Plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

Meeting with Christel Schaldemose (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Oct 2022 · plastic pollution

Response to Communication on the functioning of the Common Fisheries Policy

23 Sept 2022

Eight years after the last reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) entered into force, the EU, which has exclusive competence in this area, is yet to succeed in fulfilling its objectives. Implementation and enforcement challenges remain, often due to Member States’ inaction, insufficient oversight by the European Commission and industry resistance to change. Possible solutions exist within the CFP itself, or in other available legal instruments, without the need to reform the CFP Basic Regulation in the medium-term. Article 49 of the CFP Basic Regulation states that: “The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the CFP by 31 December 2022”. It is a hard deadline established in a legal framework and it should not be missed by the Commission. The report must advocate for better implementation of the policy and tackle the existing gaps: end overfishing, including in the Mediterranean Sea, implement the landing obligation, reduce the negative impacts of fishing on the environment, transition to low impact fisheries, eliminate harmful subsidies, improve regionalisation and the external dimension of the policy, and address the lack of climate change considerations in the CFP. The Commission must address excessive fishing opportunities and start requesting scientific advice which reflects climate considerations and ecosystem-based approach, with special attention to mixed fisheries. The CFP implementation should be fully aligned with the EU flagship agenda, the European Green Deal, and drive a transition to sustainable, climate-smart, transparent fisheries. Certain articles of the CFP, like art.11 and art.17, are completely neglected by Member States, and require the Commission to intervene. Article 11 sets out the process for Member States to adopt a joint recommendation for fisheries measures within marine protected areas (MPAs) in a regional set-up, which is then transposed into a delegated act by the Commission. In the eight years since its adoption, only three delegated acts have come into force. Article 11 has the potential to reach the EU’s environmental objectives, but it is essential to improve clarity on process and timelines, arbitration and conflict resolution, transparency and accountability. When it comes to article 17, it can empower climate-smart, low impact fisheries by better allocating fishing opportunities using environmental and social criteria to incentivise more sustainable practices. The Commission should monitor compliance with article 17, provide guidance and a roadmap for implementing criteria, and require that quota allocation data be made publicly available by Member States. The CFP basic regulation remains a good framework for fisheries management, and in that sense, it is fit for purpose. However, the CFP lacks adequate implementation, control and enforcement, and some of the decisions and regulations adopted under its framework (such as the multi-annual plans—MAPs—and the discard plans) have effectively weakened its provisions. Addressing these shortcomings is critical now and before any future revision of the policy is considered. The necessary tools to address gaps in the implementation of the CFP already exist. The European Commission has the power to initiate legislative, political, or legal action. As a matter of priority, the Commission should initiate a REFIT and a fundamental revision of the MAPs, which have failed to reach the objectives of the CFP and deliver an effective, ecosystem-based, long-term approach to fisheries management according to the specificities of each regional basin. . NGOs call on the European Commission to deliver urgently on the CFP’s objectives to ensure the long-term environmental sustainability of fisheries and of the coastal communities that depend on them. Please see the documents attached for our detailed recommendations.
Read full response

Meeting with Caroline Roose (Member of the European Parliament) and ClientEarth AISBL and

21 Sept 2022 · Loi européenne sur la restauration de la nature

Response to Sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2023

22 Aug 2022

On behalf of 14 NGOs: Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. (BUND), ClientEarth, Danmarks Naturfredningsforening, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, Ecologistas en Acción, The Fisheries Secretariat, France Nature Environnement, De Nederlandse Elasmobranchen Vereniging, Stichting De Noordzee, Oceana, Our Fish, Sciaena, Seas At Risk, and WWF, we hereby respond to the European Commission’s public consultation on the progress towards more sustainable fisheries, the state of fish stocks and the setting of fishing opportunities. Overall, we urge the European Commission to propose fishing opportunities in accordance with the following recommendations: -Request scientific advice on fishing opportunities by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) that reflects a climate-wise and ecosystem-based approach, with special attention to mixed fisheries, prey-predator dynamics, and the recovery and conservation of the most depleted stocks. -Set TACs not exceeding scientifically advised levels based on the MSY Approach for all stocks for which MSY-based reference points are available. -Where MSY-based reference points or proxies are not available, set TACs not exceeding the Precautionary Approach catch limits advised by ICES. -Set TACs at more precautionary, lower levels and in line with an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (along with additional spatial and temporal measures) to accommodate stock-specific circumstances (overfishing level, poor recruitment), interspecies dynamics (e.g., forage species, prey-predator relationships), and other pressures such as climate change. -Fully utilise the precautionary approach in relation to mixed fisheries, protecting the most vulnerable stock(s), for example by closing areas with high mixing or by limiting quotas of the most productive stocks to levels that prevent by-catch of the vulnerable stocks. -Consider that control with onboard observers was significantly reduced in 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, landing obligation implementation remains poor, and discard rates are subject to high uncertainty. Implement remote electronic monitoring for all vessels above 12 m and for medium and high-risk vessels below 12 m (e.g., where the associated discard rates of the gear used are known to be high). -Improve transparency by making publicly available any proposals after the official Commission proposal, including Commission non-papers as well as Council Working Party and AGRIFISH Council documents and minutes, and provide transparent calculations for TACs based on the ICES advice on fishing opportunities. Please see the document attached for full recommendations.
Read full response

Oceana demands binding targets to end destructive marine fishing

18 Aug 2022
Topic — The European Commission is proposing legally binding targets to restore damaged natural ecosystems.
Message — Oceana calls for passive restoration by leaving nature undisturbed to recover damaged marine habitats. They argue the law must force countries to implement fisheries restrictions and adopt a holistic whole-site management approach.123
Why — This would help the group achieve its core mission of restoring marine biodiversity.4
Impact — The fishing industry would face new restrictions and potential bans in protected areas.5
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

19 Jul 2022 · To exchange views, upon NGO request, on the upcoming Action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems, on Commission implementing act on vulnerable marine ecosystems and on European eel status

Meeting with Annie Schreijer-Pierik (Member of the European Parliament)

6 Jul 2022 · Fisheries Peru - Meeting with APA

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

6 Jul 2022 · EU policies on ocean protection

Meeting with Catherine Chabaud (Member of the European Parliament) and Seas At Risk

28 Jun 2022 · UN conférence sur l'océan

Response to Implementing act on a list of High-Value Datasets

21 Jun 2022

Oceana is an international non-profit organisation dedicated to protecting the ocean. One of our areas of work is focused on the recovery of fisheries and on tackling Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing through increasing fisheries transparency. The lack of transparency in the global fishing sector is hindering efforts to identify and sanction the ultimate beneficiaries of IUU fishing activities − the natural person who owns the corporate entity. Opaque corporate ownership arrangements are at the heart of the IUU fishing system. The challenges in uncovering vessels’ illegal activities mean that unlawful operators are at low risk of detection, capture and sanction by control authorities. These behaviours highlight the need for transparency on beneficial ownership and public access to this information. The draft Implementing Regulation of the Open Data Directive could contribute to greater transparency in the global fishing sector, and to properly tackle illegal fishing activities. The draft, however, only calls for the publication of basic company information and company documents, without the names of company legal owners, legal representatives, and beneficial owners. This would render the dataset ineffective: journalists, for instance, would not have access to the data they need to investigate corruption, and SMEs would not be able to carry out proper due diligence on potential partners. Oceana calls on the European Commission to act on the promise of the Open Data Directive and to include in the Implementing Regulation a requirement to open up the following data free of charge, including among other, information on: - Turnover - Capital - Detailed data on branches - Name of company legal representative - Name of the legal owners and beneficial owners - Share (percentage) of ownership, and nature and extent of Beneficial Interest held (in shareholding and/or voting rights) as well as legal ownership - Start (and end date) of the beneficial owner relationship - Nationality of the beneficial owner - Country of residence of the beneficial owner - Owner identifier - Capital links between companies Moreover, Oceana recommends that in the fight against IUU fishing, the European Commission: 1) Publish a register of EU-owned vessels that are registered under non-EU flags; 2) Adopt policies to require nationals to disclose beneficial interests in foreign-flagged vessels in order to map where their nationals have registered the vessels they own or operate; 3) Facilitate cooperation between EU Member States and non-EU countries in investigating potential cases of EU nationals supporting or engaging in IUU fishing; 4) Adopt and implement effective sanctions against nationals responsible for, benefiting from, supporting or engaging in IUU fishing under a foreign flag; 5) Map where EU nationals have registered the vessels they own and/or operate in order to better inform the European Commission’s assessments and dialogues in the context of the EU IUU Regulation (including under its carding scheme). If the Commission truly wants to tackle money-laundering, corruption, and tax evasion, it should expand the Implementing Regulation to include company ownership information.
Read full response

Meeting with Caroline Roose (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Jun 2022 · Retraite PECH Verts/ALE - Mise en oeuvre de la Politique Commune de la Pêche

Meeting with Grace O'Sullivan (Member of the European Parliament) and Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises in the European Union

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

Meeting with Caroline Roose (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme and SURFRIDER FOUNDATION EUROPE

13 Jun 2022 · Conférence "There is no ocean B."

Meeting with Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius), Elena Montani (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Seas At Risk

19 May 2022 · Nature Restoration Law and the Action Plan on marine ecosystmes.

Meeting with Pierre Karleskind (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and ClientEarth AISBL

10 May 2022 · Revision de la PCP

Meeting with Catherine Chabaud (Member of the European Parliament) and France Nature Environnement

28 Apr 2022 · Techniques de pêche destructives

Meeting with François-Xavier Bellamy (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

28 Apr 2022 · Biodiversité

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

1 Apr 2022 · The follow up meeting with the sector to discuss the Commission response to the crisis in the fisheries sector, to present the measures adopted and planned

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Seas At Risk and Our Fish

16 Mar 2022 · Discussion on EU nature restoration law and action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

14 Mar 2022 · To discuss the impact of increasing fuel and raw material prices on the fishing sector

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

22 Feb 2022 · A regular meeting with NGO to discuss various fisheries matters: 2022 TAC setting, upcoming new Commission initiatives, WTO negotiation, cetaceans by-catch in the Bay of Biscay and in the Baltic Sea, control regulation negotiations etc.

Meeting with Andrea Vettori (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Seas At Risk

2 Dec 2021 · To discuss Nature Restoration Law and marine aspects

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

29 Oct 2021 · To discuss with the NGOs the perspectives for the 2022 annual fishing opportunities ahead of international consultations and the December AGRIFISH Council.

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

28 Oct 2021 · NGOs presented their expectations for an ambitious reform and shared views on specific topics in the revision of the EU fisheries control system.

Response to Policy Statement 2022

11 Aug 2021

Please find our full contribution in the file attached. Abstract: Feedback on behalf of BirdWatch Ireland, ClientEarth, Danmarks Naturfredningsforening, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, Ecologistas en Acción - Spain, The Fisheries Secretariat, Fundació ENT, De Nederlandse Elasmobranchen Vereniging, Stichting De Noordzee, Oceana, Our Fish, Sciaena, Seas At Risk, and WWF. Seven years after entry into force, progress in implementing the CFP has been too slow to end overfishing, rebuild fish populations and protect marine ecosystems. For some fish stocks, no progress has been made since the CFP was reformed. The EU has failed to fulfil its legal obligation to harvest all stocks sustainably by 2020. Despite the significant increase in fleet profitability and the reduction in overfishing brought about by the CFP in the last decade, the most recent Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) report on the monitoring of the CFP performance confirms that Baltic Sea fish populations are not improving, the Mediterranean and Black Seas remain in dire straits with 83% of assessed stocks overfished, whereas the North-East Atlantic overfishing rate increased from 38% in 2018 to 43% in 2019. These outcomes clearly show that the EU is not making firm progress in its binding commitment to end overfishing, even though some other indicators continue to show a positive trend (average fishing mortality (F/FMSY) continues to decline and biomass or abundance indices continue to increase). The EU must urgently act now to remedy this situation. The policy’s success and the EU’s credibility are at stake. The recovery from the COVID-19 crisis should be based on the principles of the European Green Deal and “building back better”. But the risks posed by overfishing, destructive fishing practices and harmful fisheries subsidies are not new, for they have been the main cause of marine biodiversity loss for the last 40 years and now we also know that they critically undermine the resilience of marine ecosystems to the impacts of climate change. The NGOs urge the European Commission to: 1. Acknowledge the real level of overfishing. The progress in ending overfishing has stopped and the trend even shows the first signs of regression. The CFP reform’s achievement is hence at great risk, unless the EU takes decisive action. The STECF has been reporting on sluggish progress for many years. The scientists’ message starkly contrasts with the overly optimistic assessment in the Commission's communication year after year, which seems once again to be based on metrics that do not fully reflect the requirements of the CFP. 2. Manage data-limited stocks in line with the CFP requirements. Whilst many stocks in EU waters have suitable scientific information on the MSY exploitation rate and MSY-based scientific advice on catches, many stocks still only have scientific advice on catches based on the ICES data-limited precautionary approach. However, both stock categories fall under the scope of the CFP, which requires all harvested species to be restored and maintained above biomass levels capable of producing the MSY (CFP Article 2.2). 3. Use science-based catch limits rather than relying on ‘last resort’ measures. If measures other than fishing limits are to be introduced, these must be coupled with legally binding, reliable, and robust methods of full catch documentation, such as on-board observers or remote electronic monitoring (REM), in order to have a proper control of the fishing activity. 4. Implement the landing obligation. To accurately ‘reflect catches’ while following scientific advice, TACs need to be set in a way that ensures that the actual catches (including official landings, legal exemption discards and unreported illegal discards) do not exceed the ICES catch advice. Importantly, ICES catch advice is not advice for the level at which the TAC should be set, but advice for the maximum catch level not to be exceeded.
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

13 Jul 2021 · To exchange views with the ‘’blue’’ NGOs on the upcoming Action Plan on sustainable fisheries and protection of marine resources, annual exercise of fixing total allowable catches and ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

Response to Calculation, verification and reporting of data on the separate collection of SUP beverage bottles

17 Jun 2021

Oceana welcomes the separate collection targets laid out in Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2019/904 that apply to beverage bottles with a capacity of up to three litres, including their caps and lids. These targets establish that by 2025, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the separate collection of an amount of waste single-use plastic bottles equal to 77 % of such single-use plastic products placed on the market in a given year by weight. This separate collection must equal to 90% by 2029. Oceana wishes to note, however, that the Directive states that “‘separate collection’ means separate collection as defined in point 11 of Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC” [Waste Framework Directive], that is, “’separate collection’ means the collection where a waste stream is kept separately by type and nature so as to facilitate a specific treatment”. For this reason, bottle collection within the undifferentiated waste should be banned from being counted as separate collection and should not count towards the target. Failing to do so would undermine the efforts to change behaviours and reduce littering. Oceana supports the proposal submitted by a number of groups aiming to add the following clause to Article 2(4)(b) of the draft Implementing Decision: “For the avoidance of doubt, where single-use bottles are separated from the waste which is collected from households and businesses aside from the waste fractions collected separately for recycling –variously known as mixed waste, rest waste, residual waste, undifferentiated waste– such bottles cannot be considered as ‘separately collected’.” Additionally, the Implementing Decision needs to state that an independent body will ensure that bottles are free of contamination in order to allow for closed-loop, bottle-to-bottle reuse or recycling. The reason for this is that achieving a circular economy for plastics requires the availability of sufficient food grade material to meet the recycled content target set in Article 6 of Directive 2019/904.
Read full response

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

12 May 2021

• Oceana welcomes the Roadmap on the Action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems, which will be key in delivering on the ambition of the EU’s 2030 Biodiversity Strategy in relation to the ocean. • Given that fishing remains the biggest driver of marine biodiversity loss, Oceana particularly welcomes the co-lead by DG Environment and DG Mare on this file, as full implementation of both the Common Fisheries Policy and environmental legislation is needed to tackle the impacts of EU fisheries on biodiversity and on the climate. The Action Plan must therefore articulate and complement other EU policies, including: the upcoming Restoration law, strict protection targets, the Technical Measures Regulation, Natura 2000, and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. • In order to fill remaining gaps in EU policy, the Action Plan should focus, as a priority, on tackling the impacts of destructive fishing gears, particularly bottom-towed gears, and on mitigating the ecosystem and climate impacts of fishing. It must propose an ambitious political vision, with associated actions and a credible timeline of implementation (starting in 2022 and building over time to meet 2030 commitments). It must define a route to transition EU fisheries towards low-carbon, low-impact fishing practices to meet the European Green Deal objectives. • Despite more than 10 years of implementation, the EU has missed its objective of reaching Good Environmental Status in EU marine waters by 2020. The indicators for seabed integrity are alarming: the EU seabed is the most bottom-trawled in the world, and 79% of EU coastal areas are physically disturbed by bottom-trawling. Bottom-towed gear is prevalent in the EU, with this highly destructive and unselective gear being extensively used in sensitive coastal areas, and even inside Marine Protected Areas: a 2020 Oceana study revealed that bottom-trawling affected 86% of Natura 2000 area designated to protect habitats. • Marine sediments are the largest pool of organic carbon on the planet, but when disturbed by bottom-fishing gears, enormous amounts of CO2 get released into the ocean. A recent study estimated that every year, a volume of emissions similar to those of global aviation are mobilised due to bottom-trawling. Reducing the trawling footprint would protect habitats, safeguard the carbon storage capacity of the seabed and contribute to reducing CO2 emissions while increasing the ocean’s resilience to climate change. • The Action Plan should therefore include a commitment to prohibit all bottom-towed fishing inside European MPAs and in sensitive marine areas (e.g., coastal areas, the deep-sea), while setting an ambitious target for the reduction of the bottom-trawling footprint by 2025 at the latest. • In addition to protecting marine ecosystems, one of the stated aims of the Action Plan is to conserve fisheries resources. Healthy fish populations will not be achieved only through the full implementation of current policies, driven by the aim of maximising fisheries yields, but also by recovering and maintaining populations at abundance levels that allow them to fulfil their role in the wider ecosystem. The Action Plan should therefore include this management principle and associated actions, such as the use of precautionary buffers when setting fishing opportunities (e.g. to take into account climate, environmental or interspecies factors). • The conservation of fish populations also requires the adaptation of management to stressors like climate change, which is affecting fish population status, productivity and distribution. Moreover, the poor condition of some fish populations, due to overfishing, reduces their resilience to climate change impacts. The Action Plan provides an opportunity to put in place measures to recover fish stocks while mitigating and adapting to climate change, by introducing climate considerations into scientific advice and management decisions.
Read full response

Meeting with Charlina Vitcheva (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and WWF European Policy Programme and

11 May 2021 · Discussion on IUU

Response to Protecting the environment in the EU’s seas and oceans

27 Apr 2021

Feedback from Oceana in Europe: • The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) provides a holistic approach to marine policies, centered around the ecosystem-based approach to manage human activities. It is the backbone of the EU’s marine environmental policy and requires that Member States develop and implement marine strategies to deliver Good Environmental Status (GES). • As stated in the 2019 implementation report, it is the responsibility of Member States to deploy the necessary capacities and policies to meet their obligations to deliver policy objectives, while the EC ensures effective implementation and compliance overall. • Despite more than 10 years of implementation, the MSFD has missed its main objective of reaching GES in EU marine waters by 2020. Its implementation has been too limited, in particular due to poor ambition from Member States in setting up appropriate definitions, targets and measures to reach GES. Implementation challenges also came from sectoral silos, a particular impediment to delivering GES given the multiple policies impacting the ocean (e.g. fisheries, energy, transport, agriculture, etc). The overall lack of political will was a critical obstacle to the delivery of the Directive, enabled by the European Commission who tacitly accepted this lack of ambition. • The European Court of Auditors found that not only the MSFD but also related and complementary legislation (including the Common Fisheries Policy and the Habitats Directive) have failed to effectively protect Europe’s seas. Oceana’s research has shown that even in so-called protected areas, destructive activities continue to take place despite obligations to reach Good Environmental Status. • There is therefore an urgent need for enhanced coherence of the MSFD with the new European ambition under the Green Deal, the climate law and the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy. To that end, the MSFD must be strengthened, by developing complementary approaches, such as targeted new legislation, the development of delegated and/or implementing acts, or enhanced implementation tools. Importantly, legal action (including infringement procedures) must be taken to ensure that Member States apply the law. • We therefore urge the European Commission to use all existing legal tools to improve the implementation of the Directive. Of key importance are upcoming EU initiatives which could reinforce the MSFD, such as the EU Action Plan to conserve fisheries and protect marine ecosystems and the future EU restoration law, which could help to tackle ocean-based pressures such as destructive fishing in marine protected areas and strengthen the ocean’s resilience as well as its role in mitigating climate change. • The evaluation of the MSFD should lead to an overall strengthening of its implementation in light of the climate and biodiversity crisis we face. It should enable the EU to deliver its ambition to tackle the biggest environmental challenges of this generation. The lack of meaningful action more than a decade after the entry into force of the MSFD seriously undermines the credibility of the EU, and seeking to change the Directive’s provisions would send a wrong signal to Member States by rewarding lack of implementation. • For all these reasons, Oceana supports option 3 “Strengthen implementation and enforcement of the Directive without changing its provisions”.
Read full response

Meeting with Rozalina Petrova (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Seas At Risk and Funding Fish

17 Mar 2021 · EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy and the preparation of the Action Plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Seas At Risk and Funding Fish

17 Mar 2021 · EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy and the preparation of the Action Plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

Response to Evaluation of SFPAs

25 Feb 2021

Oceana welcomes the launch of this evaluation as critical improvements are needed with regard to SFPAs, their negotiation, execution and impact on the EU market. The evaluation of the SPFAs is especially relevant as products caught under these agreements end up on the EU market. This is important considering the concerns raised in SFPA evaluation reports, including on issues such as catch data, impacts on ecosystems, the effectiveness of EU funds spent under sectoral support, and the impacts on local communities. Catches made in non-EU waters under SFPAs are “EU-caught” under the EU rules of origin, and it is therefore key to ensure that these catches meet the sustainability standards that apply to catches made in EU waters. In addition, concerns regarding transparency as well as the adherence to the non-discrimination of treatment requirements by partner countries make it essential to review the functioning of the SPFAs. With regard to the scope of the evaluation, we urge the European Commission to also include the larger policy coherence of SFPAs with the fight against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. The European Commission recently made the informal decision to suspend negotiations for SFPAs when a country was given a yellow card under the EU IUU Regulation. This mechanism should be formalized, and this debate should be part of the evaluation. In addition, the evaluation should also investigate the extent to which EU nationals are engaged in fishing activities in SFPA countries under non-EU flags. This is relevant as the catches made by these vessels might also be exported to the EU. Recent SFPA protocols (e.g. the protocol with Guinea Bissau) include a provision requiring that “the Parties undertake to publish and exchange information on any agreement allowing foreign vessels to enter Guinea-Bissau's fishing zone and on the resulting fishing effort, in particular the number of authorisations issued and the catches made” or in the case of the protocol for the SFPA with Côte D’Ivoire “The Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (‘Côte d'Ivoire’) undertakes to exchange information relating to any agreement authorizing access to other foreign vessels in its fishing zone, in particular the number of authorisations issued and catches made, in accordance with Article 11 of this Protocol. Côte d'Ivoire shall also provide data on the fishing effort of Ivorian tuna vessels with an industrial fishing licence”. In the future such articles on transparency should require the non-EU country to make public information on the list of authorised foreign vessels and their catches in its EEZ on an annual basis. As the EU is publishing the list of authorised vessels to fish in external waters, non-EU countries that enter into an SFPA should also be required to provide this information. In addition, information on beneficial ownership should be required before awarding any fishing authorization to a foreign vessel in their EEZ. These requirements are in line with the Standard published in 2017 by the Fisheries Transparency Initiative. Information on beneficial ownership should be available to those that demonstrate a legitimate interest or when there is an overriding public interest in making this information publicly available. The implementation of the transparency requirements laid out in SFPA protocols should be evaluated by the annual Joint Committee, and action (including suspension of the protocol) should be taken in case of non-compliance.
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

12 Feb 2021 · To discuss different blue/marine related issues, in particular bycatch emergency measures, EU-UK negotiations and implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy.

Meeting with Francisco José Millán Mon (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Environmental Justice Foundation

21 Jan 2021 · Fisheries Control

Meeting with Florika Fink-Hooijer (Director-General Environment)

15 Dec 2020 · marine environment

Meeting with Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Seas At Risk and Funding Fish

5 Nov 2020 · Action Plan fisheries and fishing opportunities, offshore renewable energy strategy

Meeting with Francisco José Millán Mon (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Environmental Justice Foundation

4 Nov 2020 · Fisheries Control

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

14 Oct 2020 · To discuss the upcoming Commission proposals for fishing opportunities for the North Sea/ Atlantic and for the Deep Sea.

Meeting with Charlina Vitcheva (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and WWF European Policy Programme and

16 Sept 2020 · Workings of the Advisory Councils

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

16 Jul 2020 · To discuss the fishing opportunities exercise for 2021, in particular for the Baltic Sea, as well as issues related to the Biodiversity Strategy.

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Seas At Risk vzw and Funding Fish

1 Jul 2020 · economic recovery and marine ecosystems

Meeting with Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Seas At Risk and Funding Fish

1 Jul 2020 · economic recovery and marine ecosystems

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

2 Jun 2020 · To discuss the fisheries governance in the Mediterranean and issues relevant for the sustainability of Mediterranean fisheries

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Seas At Risk vzw and Funding Fish

27 May 2020 · EU Green Deal and marine biodiversity

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

4 Feb 2020 · To discuss outcome of the Council of December 2019 and the NGO views regarding the process of setting the TACs and quotas

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

29 Jan 2020 · To discuss illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

Meeting with Anthony Agotha (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and WWF European Policy Programme and

20 Nov 2019 · Exchange of views on sustainability, climate change and maritime issues

Meeting with Andrew Bianco (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

10 Apr 2019 · Mediterranean fisheries and MedFish4Ever progress

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and

5 Feb 2019 · IUU Fishing

Response to Regulation of EP and Council establishing a multi-annual plan for demersal species in the Western Mediterranean.

2 May 2018

Oceana believes the Commission’s proposal is a timid step in the right direction, yet insufficient to reverse the severe overfishing crisis in the Mediterranean Sea. This multiannual plan for demersal Western Mediterranean fisheries is of paramount importance and should mark a milestone for a recovery of the stocks in the region where they are inexorably heading to a point of no return, if not already reached. Some commercially important species, such as hake, red mullet and anglerfish, are overfished up to 10 times the estimated sustainable levels. The EU is particularly responsible for this bleak situation, as the main fishing actor in the region (by volume, fleet size and fishing capacity). Science shows that the exploitation of Mediterranean fisheries resources exclusively under EU competence is on average three times higher than sustainable levels (STECF-17-04). Yet there has been no sign in the past decade of any significant improvements in the exploitation regime. Worst total landings have declined by between 30-70% in in 10 years, while fishing mortality remains excessive. The proposed effort regime is unlikely to be sufficient alone to bring down fishing mortality, as drastic reductions are needed to rebuild stocks. Instead effective science based catch limit regime has become inevitable to bring down fishing mortality effectively and recover fish stocks by 2020. Given the severity of the situation, and the inability of France, Italy and Spain to tackle overfishing and implement the CFP, we believe short term, bold management decisions are required, such as the extension of bottom-trawling restrictions all year long, and the rapid implementation of TACs and quotas for demersal stocks.
Read full response

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and

23 Jan 2018 · common fisheries policy, multi-annual plans and fisheries control regulation

Meeting with Andras Inotai (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella) and WWF European Policy Programme and

11 Jan 2018 · Fisheries Control Regulation

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

24 Nov 2017 · implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy

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

6 Oct 2016 · Blue Growth, ICCAT, Our Ocean 2017

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

28 Sept 2016 · South Western Waters Advisory Council

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

10 Nov 2015 · Implementation of CFP / fighting against IUU

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and

28 Sept 2015 · Ocean Governance, IUU

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and

22 Sept 2015 · Common Fisheries Policy

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and Greenpeace European Unit and Sociedad Española de Ornitología

7 Sept 2015 · Courtesy visit / Common Fisheries Policy

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and

23 Jun 2015 · Ocean Governance

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and

4 Feb 2015 · Blue and green growth, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Marine litter, Aquaculture, Seabed mining

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and The Pew Charitable Trusts

19 Jan 2015 · Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and

4 Dec 2014 · Implementation of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy, Ocean Governance, Deep Sea Access