The emotions are consistent across stakeholders: insecurity and anxiety. This echoes the sentiments echoed by representatives from Galician, Spanish and European fisheries in outlets of the Prensa Ibérica group and Faro de Vigo. Barely six weeks after Brussels formalized a ban on bottom trawling in all marine protected areas, and after plans to restrict 30 percent of community waters by 2030, the European Commission itself faced a backlash to that approach. The promise of binding targets and solid legislation has been challenged, and the call for dialogue remains. Four weeks ago, Charlina Vitcheva, Managing Director of Maritime and Fisheries, warned that infringement procedures could be opened against noncompliant countries, a stance echoed by EC Fisheries spokesperson Adalbert Jahn during a Monday briefing. The central question remains: where do the arguments differ, and where do they align? The response from several EU member states, including Spain, France, and Germany, points to a profound socioeconomic impact that has not been resolved yet.
Amid the current landscape, the controversy over bottom fishing across 87 regions of the North Atlantic continues to unfold. There is little optimism about a quick reopening of the Community Steering Committee. This climate helps explain why the industry is not persuaded by the statements made by Virginijus Sinkevicius, the Commissioner for Environment, Ocean and Fisheries, during his talks with the Foreign Minister and other delegates. In a recent meeting, representatives from France and Hervé Berville discussed the need for a roadmap aimed at protecting ecosystems and boosting the resilience of fisheries.
From the viewpoint of Javier Garat, Secretary General of Cepesca, the Spanish Confederation of Fisheries, the Commission appears to be retreating, though the rhetoric remains verbose and the actions slow. He welcomed Brussels’ message but warned that concerns persist. The best course, he argued, would be for Brussels to withdraw the Action Plan to prevent misinterpretations. He also anticipated continued environmental campaigns and questioned the Commission’s authority to end drag fishing, noting its economic significance for many ports.
Even on the policy front, the industry notes that many ice factories, markets, and marketers would struggle to survive without drag operations. The impression remains that the issue is not fully taken into account. The decision to abolish this practice in all marine protected areas by 2030 is said to lack alignment with scientific criteria. In particular, questions are raised about whether the ban is necessary in areas with vulnerable marine ecosystems where drag fishing is already prohibited by existing rules. This view is shared by the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations and the president of Europêche, who emphasize the need for science-driven decisions.
The Port of Vigo Shipowners’ Cooperative, represented by Edelmiro Ulloa, rejects any credibility given to a sudden change in the Commission’s stance. He describes a dual discourse that varies with the audience and suggests hidden intent behind the evolving positions. He warns that the shift could influence future political decisions and cautions that the industry will respond accordingly. The sentiment is echoed by other industry leaders who argue that public pressure and political posturing should not override practical realities.
Inclusive of these criticisms, voices from the Port of Celeiro and the European Association of Fisheries Producers’ Organizations stress that strong political opposition to the proposed measures has prompted calls to reformulate the Plan of Action. There is a sense that Brussels will persist in its objective to end bottom fishing and other long-standing practices, even as the sector notes significant insecurity until those plans are backed by concrete evidence. The North Atlantic’s 87 regions continue to be the focal point of a debate that many describe as a test of political will rather than a simple regulatory choice.
Overall, observers note that the agenda holds firm for many but remains vulnerable to shifts in position and the strength of counterarguments. The industry argues that practical considerations, economic vitality of ports, and the livelihoods tied to fishing must be weighed with ecological concerns. Meanwhile, critics worry that a heavy-handed approach could undermine sustainable practices if not paired with robust scientific justification and transparent implementation. The period ahead is expected to reveal whether Brussels can translate its stated environmental aims into policies that reconcile ecological protection with the social and economic fabric of coastal communities.
Citations: observations attributed to industry representatives and European officials reflect ongoing discussions on fishing policy, ecological safeguards, and regional economic impact.