REM
- ifsacormac
- Apr 3
- 7 min read
More EU fisheries regulations - - but more ‘one law for some and the blind eye’ for others?
REM is a new electronic regulation for pelagic fishing vessels (and demersal vessels in the coming years) that will monitor literally every action on board a vessel.
This is a complex matter but one that, once it finds it’s way through the pelagic fleet all the way down to 12m whitefish vessels, will eventually impact on every fisherman and coastal community until, inevitably, this industry will simply be regulated out of business.
It seems that the extremes of EU micromanagement will eventually result in everything under a ‘big brother’ watchful eye but the same people behind this brainchild of EU control are also those who refuse to debate that existing over-regulation is killing some sectors while a lack of regulation blatantly lets others away with murder….
Cormac Burke reports.
First we had VMS (Vessel Monitoring System), then ERS (Electronic Reporting System) i.e. the electronic / digital process of recording catch data on board and transmitting it to authorities, and now its REM (Remote Electronic Monitoring) which incorporates onboard closed-circuit television systems, sensors and additional electronic software to record and report the operations of a range of existing vessel equipment such as net-drums, fish pumps and tank hatches - and even down to sensors to electronically report water temperatures in the RSW tanks at any given time.
It is believed that as well as recording times and dates, the sensor being alerted to the commencement of operation of any equipment will set a CCTV system into action which will enable a recorded televised feed of the events taking place on board.
Although still at proposal stage it’s clear that this regulation is coming down the line and the Danish pelagic sector have already begun introduction of some of the systems on their vessels - - meanwhile the Scottish Government, whilst not bound by EU regulations, are setting their own version of REM requirements which, commencing March 2026, will not only apply to their own fleet but to pelagic vessels of all other nations fishing in Scottish waters after that date.
And so, from an Irish perspective, while the pelagic fleet are proactive about ‘getting on board’ with REM and Irish fishermen are more than willing to be a part of the new EU monitoring system that will help see an end to discarding at sea but only if: a) the requirements of such a system are reasonable, workable and that it is standardised between the EU and non EU (UK & Norway) fleets and, (b) that there exists a level playing field with regards the application of regulations in that ALL vessels be given the same level of policing, which is certainly not the case at present i.e. for example the foreign factory vessels that operate year-around in Irish waters with little or no monitoring or inspection from neither EFCA nor the SFPA.
Tail wagging the dog once again?
However, there also exists a grey area in that the various providers of this new electronic monitoring service will offer different levels of the system and, Ireland for example, must ensure that the suite of technology they opt to install, as already mentioned, be compatible with Scotland whilst also meeting EU requirements … but a major question hangs over will the EU demands be a straightforward list of requirements or, as we’ve seen before, leave a door open for the authorities to constantly increase the level of monitoring demands year on year?
This raises the obvious question as to exactly who within the EU Commission will be given the authority of setting the REM requirement standards?
Given that the first mention of the proposed REM system of monitoring by the EU Commission came from a European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) presentation in Vigo 2019 then it is right to presume that, as EFCA’s poster child, Ireland’s Sea Fisheries Protection ‘Authority’ (SFPA) will play a major role in the formation of the new system.
And, even if not tasked with the actual leadership role in REM formation, history tells us that the SFPA will still want its own ‘tougher’ and a more complicated version of the EU system to be designed for Irish fishermen - as is always the case in SFPA interpretation of EU regulations as applied in Ireland compared to elsewhere in the EU.
But, from painful experience in dealing with the SFPA over the years with their unfathomable and somewhat comical method of pelagic landing & sampling monitoring, there are rightly some concerns amongst Irish fishermen regarding the possibility of the SFPA being forefront in the EU’s drawing up the REM requirements and thus far, it would appear that such concerns are well founded as, reportedly, it seems that the SFPA’s suggestions contains not only the aforementioned sensors for net drums & winches and a range of CCTVs but also the loose term that equates to ‘any other items’….
… which in fact means that, for Irish vessels at least, a skipper may have installed every single item on the SFPA’s REM requirement list but by the time he gets inspected for authorisation by the SFPA then their ‘any other items’ category means that they, can at any time, change items requirements or make additions - - - which in essence means the SFPA will have even more increased powers to move the goalposts as and when it suits them, which undoubtedly will lead to more opportunity for trumped up charges and arrests for ridiculous breaches which, as often seen before, get thrown out by the courts as a waste of time, or more worrying, can result in a vessel master getting penalty points for something as random as being unable to exactly guesstimate the percentage of a bycatch through his bulk main catch.
Pull quote
“REM will become mandatory in order to monitor the compliance with the landing obligation for high risk vessels above 18m and it will also prevent illegal discards and therefore ensure the accurate documentation of catches” - - EU Commission ‘Ocean & Fisheries’ website.
But who foots the bill?
In the midst of all the masses of proposals and possible regulation amendments nowhere does there seem to be much reference to the cost element involved.
The Irish pelagic industry has already been informed by the SFPA that the expected cost of installation of the required technology will ‘only’ be in the region of €8,000 per vessel but €20,000 is believed by many to be a more realistic figure - - and, based on prices quoted to Danish vessels in their current trial version of the system, is between €30,000 and €50,000 per vessel.
But wait, that’s not all. The heavy load of bandwidth required to send CCTV high resolution recorded imaging over the internet will mean that most vessels will need to have new hardware installed as their existing satellite system, which generally caters for crew social media usage and vessel internet provision, would not have the capacity to also transmit the REM requirement - - and it is estimated that an additional satellite system for this purpose alone will cost in the region of €1,000 per ‘at sea’ month.
Flawed justice system
The EU Fisheries Commission and EFCA hold in high regard the bold sweeping statements that come attached with ‘CFP Reform 2013’, the ‘Landing Obligation’, ‘ending discards’, ‘review of the CFP’ and, in general, a range of politically correct cliches that proclaim what a good job they’re doing and keeping a careful watch on all these crooked fishermen that always seem to be assumed guilty until found innocent…
But surely the ever-increasing level of EU regulation of fishing fleets is nothing more than a farce when the same enforcers pretend that they don’t notice that some EU Member States have numbers of fishery inspection officers a fraction of those in other Member States - - Ireland being one case in point with a small and ever-dwindling fleet size but ever-growing numbers of fishery officers (to over 200) while other nations with much larger fleets have far fewer officers…
… and in combination with this, it is widely known that large factory vessels of some Member States can go to sea, spend long weeks catching & processing, and return ashore to unload and at NO POINT in that entire process are they inspected, monitored or checked by the same ‘authorities’ that we are all told carry out their work in a ‘fair & level playing field’ manner across the European Union.
Regarding this situation of these EU pelagic factory ships working in Irish waters, the EU regulators must distinguish between monitoring processing facilities and fishing decks.
Irish land-based processing facilities have been obligated under EU rules to have CCTV (indeed the Killybegs processing industry has the most CCTV systems installed than in any fishing port throughout all of Europe); but meanwhile the EU regulators deem the Dutch floating processing factories operating in Irish waters and within the Irish State to be exempt from these exact same laws.
Therefore it is clear that the EU must level the playing field with existing regulations before introducing new ones.
If the EU Commission genuinely wants to convince us that everything is a ‘level playing field’ then they should begin by openly publishing a list of EU-wide numbers of fishing vessels and numbers of fishery officers in each Member State and furthermore show the numbers of inspections carried out every year in each Member State on that State’s own vessels as well as the vessels of other States working in their waters.
Before the EU Commission and EFCA introduce and try to enforce any additional control & monitor regulations many believe that the systems already in place should be seen to be carried out and applied equally to the fleets of ALL EU Member States…
Comment
And so, while all of this appears to sound good to the bureaucrats in Brussels, who sit in their glass cages and have never sailed on board a fishing vessel in their lives - never mind try to eek out a living from it, most of us observing from the sidelines see these proposals as ill-conceived and impractical, like many of the regulations foisted upon this industry.
There are perfectly good deterrents and control systems already in place if they were correctly and evenly implemented but, as is so often seen with Ireland’s SFPA, when things are not as they should be they always look out the window rather than in the mirror.
If the people who are hired to protect EU waters simply do their jobs in a professional, proportionate and effective manner then there would be no problem - - but because they are incompetent, they push the blame onto the industry, resulting in unnecessary extra legal responsibility, financial burden, and technical complexity.
A fisherman's job is already challenging enough - - but once again it appears that the regulators want to make it harder simply so that their own jobs can be easier!
NOTE: By the way, the first steps towards introducing an identical EU REM system on whitefish vessels has already been taken and its only a matter of time before the bureaucrats dream up another equally impractical regime for demersal fishermen just as they are now doing for their pelagic counterparts.
The details of the full program for the REM vessel system & regulations can be seen on the following EFCA / EUROPA website link:
댓글