European Parliament 2014-2019
Committee on Petitions
31.10.2018
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Subject: Petition No 0258/2018 by Emeline Colledani (French) on electric pulse fishing in the North Sea, the Netherlands
1. Summary of petition
The petitioner complains about the damaging effects of electric pulse fishing, which uses cables to send electric pulses along the seabed, “stunning” fish and driving them easier into the fishermen’s nets. Fishing with electricity has been banned in the EU since 1998, but in 2007 an exception was made for electric pulse fishing. The petitioner shows that 28% of the Dutch fleet is equipped with electric pulse systems, which exceeds EU quotas and causes unfair competition on the EU’s internal market, because it allows Dutch fishermen to easily and consistently multiply their catch. In the petitioner’s view this intensive fishing method is contrary to the principle of animal sentience and the need to protect fish welfare, as enshrined in Arts. 11 and 13 TFUE, because it inflicts serious suffering on fish at the time of death and also indiscriminately affects the other species present in the seabed, jeopardizing the entire marine ecosystem. The petitioner calls on the European Parliament to instate a full EU-wide ban on this fishing method and to promote better animal welfare legislation.
2. Admissibility
Declared admissible on 6 July 2018. Information requested from Commission under Rule 216(6).
3. Commission reply, received on 31 October 2018
Fishing with electricity has been prohibited in the EU since 1998. Pulse fishing was initially prohibited by the Netherlands in 1997, which was followed by an EU wide prohibition in 1998. These prohibitions were introduced primarily due to concerns associated with increases in catching efficiency at a time when sole stocks were depleted.
The petitioner points out that 28% of the Dutch fleet is equipped with pulse that exceeds the
CM\1167969EN.docx PE629.733v01-00
EN United in diversity EN
5% derogation provided currently in paragraph 2 a) of Article 31 a) of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 on technical measures1. However, this regulation allows also for derogations when the fishing operations are conducted solely for the purpose of scientific investigations (see Article 43). Moreover, Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy2 also permits Member States to undertake pilot projects to facilitate the introduction of the landing obligation (see Article 14). These provisions have also been used to expand the use of pulse in the Dutch fleet to current levels. The Commission is currently verifying the compliance of the licences issued by the Netherlands for pulse fishing with these provisions.
The petitioner considers that pulse provides an unfair competitive advantage to the Dutch as it allows them to multiply their catch. In comparison to conventional beam trawling, which pulse is designed to replace, pulse is indeed more efficient. It is, however, important to note that overall catches are limited through Total Allowable Catch decided annually in regulations on fishing opportunities that limit the overall catch. This means that pulse allows the quota to be taken with less fishing effort rather than permitting increased levels of catch. The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas3 corroborates this, stating that “The higher catch efficiency of the pulse trawl for sole implies that the sole quota can be caught in less fishing time than with the traditional beam trawl. Considering only the pulse licence holders, their fishing effort (fishing hours) targeting sole decreased by 9% between 2009 and 2017, while their share of the Dutch quota increased by 27%.”
It is important to consider that all fishing methods have some degree of impact regarding the target and non-target species. According to scientific assessments by the International Council of the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)4 the conventional way of fishing by beam trawling has proven to have a negative impact on the ecosystems. In particular, ICES advises that there are fewer ecological and environmental effects of using pulse trawls than traditional beam trawls when exploiting the total allowable catch (TAC) of North Sea sole. In its recent advice comparing the ecological and environmental effects of pulse trawls and traditional beam trawls when exploiting the North Sea sole TAC, ICES3 notes that “The rate of injuries inflicted by mechanical impact on fish during the catch process is likely to be lower in pulse trawls than in traditional beam trawls. Cod suffer a relatively high injury rate when exposed to pulses, but the increase in the overall mortality of the North Sea cod stock caused by these injuries is presently negligible. Flatfish (sole, plaice, and dab), seabass, and small-spotted catshark do not suffer pulse-induced injuries.” Moreover, it states that “Pulse trawls do not mechanically penetrate as deeply into sediments as traditional beam trawl and will therefore have a lesser mechanical effect on the benthos” and “Pulse trawls have a reduced footprint and mechanical impact on the benthos compared with traditional beam trawls. The few studies of the effects of electrical pulses indicate no incremental mortality on benthos from the pulse trawls. It can therefore be expected that effect on the structure and functioning of the
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, OJ L 125, 27/04/1998 2Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013. 3 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2018/Special_requests/nl.2018.08.pdf 4 ICES 2016, Request from France for updated advice on the ecosystem effects of pulse trawl. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/France_Effects_of_pulse_t rawl.pdf
PE629.733v01-00 2/3 CM\1167969EN.docx EN
benthic ecosystem is less for pulse trawls.”
Conclusions
The conventional way of fishing by beam trawling has proven to have a negative impact on the ecosystems. The independent scientific advice summarised above suggests that the electric pulse stimulation - if properly controlled - may offer a more ecologically benign alternative way of fishing by reducing unwanted by-catch, reducing seabed damage and lowering CO2 emissions. The Commission continues to follow the ongoing scientific and control developments closely.
CM\1167969EN.docx 3/3 PE629.733v01-00 EN