The Committee on Fisheries (PECH) of the European Parliament (EP) has launched an own-initiative report (INI) on the topic of the Blue Economy “Toward a sustainable blue economy in the EU: the role of fisheries and aquaculture sectors.”
This initiative is following the publication by the European Commission of a Communication on “Sustainable blue economy: Transforming EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future” last May 2021. The first draft was debated last 29 November.
The Members of the PECH Committee generally criticized the lack of specific objectives and action in the EC communication and reaffirmed the central role of fisheries and aquaculture, as as strategic sectors that “provide healthy food for people, job creation and a future for youth.”
The rapporteur, Ms. Carvalhais regretted the “lack of general management of marine spatial planning” and requested a special attention to small-scale fisheries as the most vulnerable and fragile sector: “There must be a balance between the development of all activities and the need to ensure continuity and stability of the more traditional activities.” Several other MEPs underpinned the social importance of coastal communities as well as the importance of their participation in decision-making processes that affect them.
In this, most of members also insisted on protecting biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. Ms. O’Sullivan, shadow rapporteur for the Greens/EFA, called for “legally binding targets for recovery of ecosystems.” The report also mentions the need to promote more selective fishing gear and energy-efficient fishing methods.
The report also mentions the importance of sustainable value chains and, “underlines the importance of differentiating between production and protein processing aquaculture, particularly when the latter involves practices that put pressure on the sustainability of marine resources in other parts of the world.” Ms. Roose, who is rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development (DEVE) welcomed this, insisting that “fishing for the purpose of supplying fishmeal and fishoil factories in developing countries is causing serious damage to small pelagic stocks” and called for a “transition” to farm non-carnivorous species in aquaculture.
MEP Roose recalled the risks related to fishmeal industry especially when it comes to the preservation of small pelagics in the West African region.
In this regard, Roose alerted of the nefarious impacts of this fishmeal and fishoil industry, stressing the urgency for a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) to manage the stocks of small pelagics in West Africa and demanded the EU to allocate resources for it. Indeed, this diversion of small pelagic fish resources from human consumption towards animal feed, undermines food security in the whole West African region, particularly because it prevents women fish processors’ access to raw material.
Regarding developing countries, and the EU’s promotion of the Blue Economy with third countries, Ms. Roose insisted that the 30x30 approach [by 2030, protecting 30% of the ocean, ed] should be “based on human rights” and protect coastal communities and the ecosystems they depend on from the “impacts of extractive industries”, such as deep-sea mining.
Banner photo: Vincent Van Doornick, European Parliament.
Closing the funding gap for biodiversity conservation is one of the critical topics at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), hosted in Colombia in October 2024. The funding gap has been estimated at $700 billion in Goal D of the Kunming-Montreal Agreement, based on a report, “Financing Nature”, published in 2020. Taking the example of fisheries and ocean conservation, this article shows the $700 billion figure is based on highly dubious calculations and assumptions. The author argues the funding gap report is not a serious effort to estimate the needs for supporting conservation efforts. Instead, it is a performative publication marketing opportunities for private investment and market-based mechanisms. Therefore, the $700 billion figure should be rejected by those opposed to the continuing financialisation of conservation.