The case of fishing and European inflexibility

The fishing sector in Catalonia, and in general in the Mediterranean countries of the European Union, has been breathing much easier since early Saturday morning. The EU Council for Fisheries and Agriculture had on the table a plan for 2026 that involved a 65% reduction in the number of days allowed to go to sea, which in the case of trawling would have left them with just nine. That's a full week in an entire year. Catalan fishermen's associations spoke of a death blow to the sector, and the impact on the market would have been more than significant, because in the last 15 years the consumption of fresh fish in the country has fallen by up to 40%, mainly due to price. Finally, and without needing to activate a blocking minority of Spain, France, and Italy (an available tool but with a very high political cost), The EU has decided to leave the situation as it was.There will be 143 working days for fishing and no new environmental restrictions will be applied during 2026.

One can speak of a political success, but the fishing guilds downplay it. They felt that the effort made years ago to adapt their work to the ecological sustainability of the marine environment was not being taken into account, and that the restrictions of 2025 should give way to an increase in the number of days (they wanted 180) by 2026. The apparent paradox of the situation is that scientific and environmental institutions They have shown greater affinity and understanding for the fishermen's position than for that of the EU. The reality is that all these sectors directly involved in fishing, whether through their activities or their analyses, take the socioeconomic factor into account to a greater or lesser degree. The EU Council for Fisheries and Agriculture does not, and therefore will always tend to consider any improvements in sustainability achieved as insufficient.

In fact, the main criticism from the sector and the affected countries is that fisheries regulations are inflexible, and that EU proposals are based on often unjustified and unattainable target figures. A case that particularly affects Catalan fishermen exemplifies this: the intention was to penalize Norway lobster fishing even though scientists see no evidence of overfishing. It's as if education only used multiple-choice exams or if trials in the justice system were decided by a machine that handed down sentences. The human factor must be taken into account.

This brings us to the recurring debate about the European Union as a bureaucratic machine. In this context, the issue is not so much the paperwork as the regulatory rigidity. Of course, a strong EU is necessary, and in the current era of global upheaval, it is essential. And it is also logical that regulations are the way forward to reconcile the interests of 27 countries. But if we want to maintain a degree of common sense and keep the public committed to the project, we must fight against institutional inertia, against the inflexibility tied exclusively to a regulation, a text, or a figure. It is significant that in the case of fishing, despite the avalanche of arguments from the sector and even scientists, the prevailing feeling from the start of the Council meeting on Wednesday, and until shortly before the resolution was announced, was that the EU's ultra-restrictive proposal would prevail. It is therefore welcome news that, regardless of the final resolution, the EU Council has reached a commitment to reform the regulation. We shall see.