Fishermen in several Member States are pressing their governments for additional public aid to help with rising fuel costs. Fuel for the fisheries sector is already heavily subsidized and this is a controversial issue. To tackle the fuel crisis the European Commission has agreed in principle on the contents of an emergency package of measures. The measures are currently under discussion and the Commission plans to adopt a formal proposal in early July.
Environmental NGOs oppose the proposal since the provision of fuel subsidies will contradict other environmental policy objectives and has the potential to undermine fish stock management as well as the fishing industry in the long term. Pew Environmental Group, Seas At Risk, BirdLife International, Oceana and the North Sea Foundation urge the Commission not to approve fuel subsidies schemes that are not compatible with state aid rules. The organizations are alarmed, as the approval of fuel subsidies at this time will only delay the necessary restructuring of the EU fisheries sector, distort competition among Member States and undermine fundamental EU and international reform processes.
Four types of measures are envisaged in the proposal: emergency measures, measures of benefit to fleets which engage in a major restructuring effort, market measures to increase the value of fish and measures facilitating the use of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) instrument.
Modifications to the de minimis aid are under consideration as part of the new emergency measures. The de minimis aid opens the back door to further subsidies and is likely to provide fishermen with “hidden” subsidies. The modification would allow a concession of the € 30,000 de minimis aid per vessel instead of per firm, but with an overall cap of € 100,000 per enterprise.
The de minimis aid is in theory a form of non-transparent aid and might be used to finance fuel costs of fishing vessels. There is a need for greater transparency which would expose hidden subsidies which are damaging in terms of environmental and socio-economic impacts.
The proposed measures also include increased aid for modernization schemes. In order to provide a substantial additional incentive for fishing companies to use more efficient vessels and gear, the Commission proposes to reduce the mandatory private financial participation. However, a longer-term approach is needed where the industry shifts to low fuel-consumption and gears with low environmental impact. This encompasses more fundamental changes than using more efficient motors, which initially reduce fuel consumption but in the long run worsen the situation by contributing to an increase in fishing effort and an increase on already over-fished stocks.
Another measure proposed is allowing the granting of partial decommissioning aid in case of replacement of an old vessel with a new smaller and more energy efficient one. It is proposed that a vessel owner scrapping one or more vessels and replacing it with a new one, which is smaller and less fuel consuming, may be allowed to receive the scrapping premium in relation to the capacity withdrawn. In order to support the overarching policy objectives of conservation and ensure that this measure does not further contribute to increased fishing efforts this proposal must be designed with great care.
It is well-known that by reducing operating costs and thus enabling an increase in fishing effort, fuel subsidies are contributing to increasing fishing pressure and overexploitation of fish stocks. As a result, fuel subsidies will not only cause further depletion of fish stocks but will also support economically unprofitable practices and undermine future economic benefits.