LuxLeaks o Luxembourg Documents. It was the result of an international journalistic investigation that uncovered the accounting practices of dozens of multinational companies that used the Central European country’s fiscal and legal laxity to evade taxes. The case took a leap in 2014 when the head of the European Commission was Jean-Claude Juncker, who served as head of Finance in the Grand Duchy. The Community Manager then realized that he had to bet on transparency, so The commissioners decided to make the entire agenda of the directors general and cabinet members public..
Thus, it is possible to know that Margrethe Vestager, Vice President and Competition Commissioner, met twice with Google in March and twice this year with Microsoft Corporation. Or his counterpart in Agriculture, Janusz Wojciechowski, did the same with more than one group to address the withdrawal of grain from Ukraine after the invasion. And also Fisheries Commission members at such a meeting – or so it seems on their agenda – made little mention of the “execution law” that puts a thousand Galician fishing vessels at risk..
Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius, and number two and general manager Charlina Vitcheva. Apart from these, multiple members of their teams hold meetings with companies, business world or non-governmental organizations. In this case, the decision to ban more than 16,400 square kilometers of bottom fishing in community waters, documented encounters has been minimal. Only one as it appears on their agenda. And on July 19, Sinkevicius was cared for by himself and two of his team (Agne Razmislaviciute-Palioniene and Carmen Preising).
The rationale for the meeting is as follows: “Exchange of views on the next Action Plan to protect fisheries resources and marine ecosystems, the Commission’s implementing action on sensitive marine ecosystems and the European eel situation”. The appointment was made with several NGOs at their request. It is only with them that it emerges as a topic of the meeting of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VME for English abbreviation), which motivates a rule that legal measures are taken into account by all industry and public administrations.
The associations that make up this environment, Oceana, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, WWF European Policy Programme, Fiskesekretariatet, Stichting BirdLife Europe, The Pew Charitable Trusts, ClientEarth AISBL, Seas At Risk and Our Fish. One of the reasons that angered the industry the most is the argumentative inconsistency of Vitcheva, who visited Galicia this summer – she is not on the agenda – and has seen the industry’s debates firsthand. “He sat down with us, everyone told him it was an unacceptable offer,” recalls ARVI manager Edelmiro Ulloa. “And he lied, saying that we were all very happy on his return to Brussels.”
As explained by FARO, the ICES (International Council of Marine Exploration Council, Spanish CIEM) report on which the Fisheries Commission relied to announce its decision – has not yet been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (DOUE) – expressly admits that they do not know about the economic impact of a measure of these properties.. “VME (Sensitive Marine Ecosystems, sensitive marine ecosystems) conditions: data missing. This can be improved by training the observers.” Even so, it goes without scientific or socioeconomic references: “The commission will review VME’s closures annually as new information becomes available.” And ditch it like this: “It’s hard to determine a preference because the socioeconomic effects are unknown. Some fishermen go to certain places on a regular basis and although the effort is not very high, it can be important to them.”
Even so, in a written response signed by Sinkevicius on the 12th of this month, Sinkevicius assured that the veto of bottom fishing was decided with a determination to “minimize socioeconomic impact”. In these areas exceeding 16,000 square kilometers, closures affect vessels equipped with bottom trawlers, dredgers, bottom gillnets, bottom longlines, pots and traps. It is not yet known whether the ban will affect any fishing gear that touches the seafloor, even if it does not reach a depth of 400 meters. In this case, About 900 Galician artisanal fishing vessels or small arts were to be subjugateddrag or pin.