opinion parliamentary committee, 22 March 2022
On the proposal for a Council directive restructuring the Union framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (recast)
Document PECH-AD-700684 · (COM(2021)0563 – C90362/2021 – 2021/0213(CNS))
Committee on Fisheries · Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato
AI:In short
The Committee on Fisheries gives its opinion on the Commission proposal to restructure EU taxation of energy products and electricity. It asks the lead committee to keep fuel for fishing vessels exempt from taxation and to exclude fishing from the new waterborne navigation taxes. It proposes new recitals warning that a fuel tax would harm the competitiveness of the EU fleet, especially small-scale vessels, raise consumer prices, encourage larger vessels and cause bankruptcies and job losses in fishing communities. It also asks for a full impact assessment before the proposal is discussed, and for support to fishers to diversify income and modernise engines through the EMFAF.
Position. The Committee on Fisheries asks the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to take into account amendments that keep fuel and on-board electricity for fishing vessels exempt from taxation, exclude fishing from the waterborne navigation taxes, add recitals on the sector's competitiveness and social impact, and require a full impact assessment before the proposal is discussed.
Key points
- The Commission proposal drops references to maintaining the international competitiveness of EU enterprises and to fuel de-taxation obligations, basing itself only on environmental aims.
- Lifting fuel de-taxation for the EU fishing sector would create an uneven playing field with heavily subsidised or low-tax foreign fleets, to the detriment of EU producers, particularly small-scale ones.
- The proposal would treat fleets unfairly, since large vessels can refuel cheaply on long trips, and would raise prices for consumers, including for fresh products.
- In the long term it would encourage the construction of larger vessels, which are generally more energy-efficient than small-scale ones.
- The fishing sector considers the proposal unfair compared with other sectors, as it has almost halved its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 while aviation and shipping emissions are high.
- Fishing capacity ceilings limit the space on board for green technologies, carbon-neutral fuels and energy sources, so the sector has limited means to innovate.
- A full impact assessment should be carried out before the proposal is discussed by co-legislators.
- A new recital would state that a fuel tax would put the EU fishing industry at a competitive disadvantage, treat territories unfairly, raise consumer prices, and cause large-scale bankruptcies and job losses.
- A new recital would say emission cuts must take into account the availability of alternatives in each affected sector.
- A new recital would note the fleet cut energy consumption by more than 15 points in the last decade, that the EU imports 60% of what it consumes, and that the sector should keep the exemptions in Directive 2003/96/EC.
- Amendments would exclude fishing from the waterborne navigation taxes in Recitals 23 and 24 and in Articles 15 and 16, and add a new Article 13a exempting fuel and on-board electricity for fishing vessels in Union waters.
- New recitals would allow exemptions or reductions for competitiveness, social or environmental reasons, and would use the EMFAF for income diversification and for modernising and replacing vessel engines.
Who is affected
- EU fishing operators, especially small-scale and coastal fleets, who would face higher costs and unfair competition if the fuel exemption is lifted.
- Final consumers of fish, particularly fresh products, who would pay higher prices.
- Local fishing communities, which would face bankruptcies and job losses.
- Fishers, who would be offered income diversification opportunities in other Blue Economy sectors.
Figures and deadlines
- More than 15 points: the reduction in the Union fishing fleet's energy consumption over the last decade.
- 60%: the share of fish the Union imports of what it consumes.
- Ten years: the period for which sustainable alternative fuels and electricity should be exempted from taxation.
- 1990: the year since which the fishing sector has almost halved its greenhouse gas emissions.
- 2030 and 2050: the Union's emission reduction targets and climate neutrality objective.
Written by AI from the full text · every figure comes from the text · ¶ opens the paragraph · 25 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
Full text
Jump to an amendment (15)
Short justification 69 paragraphs
The Commission proposal deletes from the current text of the Energy Taxation Directive 2003/96/EC any mention to the need to maintain the competitiveness of the EU enterprises at international level and to comply with international obligations on fuel de-taxation, whose aim is to ensure a level-playing field. The rationale is now purely environmental: to comply with the EU 2030 energy targets and climate neutrality by 2050.
EU operators compete with fleets heavily subsidised or that pay low taxes or fuel prices and commercialise their low-cost products that often have low or no social or environmental considerations. If the fuel de-taxation scheme for the EU fishing sector is lifted, this would create an uneven playing field among operators at international level to the detriment of the EU producers, particularly small-scale ones.
Furthermore, the Commission proposal would lead to unfair treatment between fleets, since large vessels can undertake long fishing trips on single fuel bunkering enabling them to refuel at ports with lower fuel prices. It would also cause an increase in the prices paid by the final consumers, particularly for fresh products; this would run counter to the public health recommendations to increase the consumption of fish given its high nutritional quality and therefore health benefits, and given that seafood is, by far, the animal protein with the lowest carbon footprint and, consequently, the best option in terms of food security to fight climate change.
Furthermore, in the long term, it would encourage the construction of larger vessels, as these are, in general, more energy-efficient than small-scale ones.
The Commission proposal is also perceived by the fishing sector as unfair vis-à-vis to other economic sectors, as it has almost halved its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, while, for example, the aviation industry has been booming in the past years and its greenhouse gas emissions has considerably increased. In addition, the shipping sector’s emissions are very high.
Furthermore, the fishing industry has limited possibilities and incentives to innovate and adopt green technologies, carbon-neutral fuels and energy sources, since the current fishing capacity ceilings cannot be exceeded. Yet all the above innovative technologies need more space on board, which is counted as fishing capacity.
Finally, a full impact assessment should be conducted before the Commission proposal is discussed by co-legislators.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Fisheries calls on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20 a (new)
Read the rest (57 paragraphs)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (20a) Introducing a new tax for fuel would put the Union fishing industry at a competitive disadvantage compared to other countries that apply lower fuel prices and taxes, particularly in relation to small-scale commercial fishing vessels. It would furthermore lead to unfair treatment between territories since large commercial fishing vessels can undertake long fishing trips on single fuel bunkering, enabling them to refuel at ports with lower fuel prices. It would also cause an increase in the prices paid by the final consumers, particularly for fresh products. That would run counter to public health recommendations to increase the consumption of fish given not only its high nutritional quality and therefore health benefits, but also its low environmental footprint. Finally, it would result in the unprecedented large-scale bankruptcy of many fishing companies, particularly small-scale fishing companies, and consequently in a high number of job losses, with serious repercussions for local fishing communities. |
Amendment 2
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (22a) In order to achieve the emission reduction targets set by the Union for 2030 and the climate neutrality objective for 2050 at the latest, it is necessary to reduce GHG emissions in all sectors, moving towards a fiscal framework that penalises fossil fuels and encourages the switch to clean fuels. This urgent change must be made, however, taking into account the availability of alternatives in each of the affected sectors. |
Amendment 3
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (22b) According to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries' Annual Economic Report 20211a, the Union fishing fleet has reduced its energy consumption by more than 15 points in the last decade. However, the fisheries sector faces serious decarbonisation challenges due to the lack of alternatives in the short term and existing fishing capacity limits. Fishery and aquaculture products are among the food with the lowest carbon footprint, especially wild fish from the small-scale coastal fleet. The Union is the world's largest fish market, importing 60% of what it consumes. The introduction of a new fuel tax for the fisheries sector would have a serious impact on the competitiveness of the Union fleet, especially the small-scale coastal fleet, resulting in a reduced capacity for self-sufficiency, higher prices for the consumer and a consequent increase in emissions due to increased imports. The Union fishing sector should therefore continue to benefit from the exemptions provided for in Directive 2003/96/EC of the Council. | |
| 1a The 2021 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 21-08) |
Amendment 4
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (23) Fuel used for waterborne navigation, including fishing, should also be taxed, and the Member States party to international agreements providing for the exemption of that fuel, have to, by the date of the application of this Directive, ensure they eliminate the incompatibilities. It is necessary to allow for a different level of taxation to be applied to the use of energy products and electricity for intra-EU waterborne regular service navigation, fishing and freight transport and their respective at berth activities. Considering the specificity of those uses, the minimum levels of taxation should be lower than the ones applicable to general motor fuel use. In order to provide an incentive to the use of sustainable alternative fuels and electricity, such fuels and electricity should be exempted from taxation for ten years. Energy products and electricity used for the remaining intra-EU waterborne navigation should be subject to the standard levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels and electricity in the Member States. | (23) Fuel used for waterborne navigation, excluding fishing, should also be taxed, and the Member States party to international agreements providing for the exemption of that fuel, have to, by the date of the application of this Directive, ensure they eliminate the incompatibilities. It is necessary to allow for a different level of taxation to be applied to the use of energy products and electricity for intra-EU waterborne regular service navigation and freight transport and their respective at berth activities. Considering the specificity of those uses, the minimum levels of taxation should be lower than the ones applicable to general motor fuel use. In order to provide an incentive to the use of sustainable alternative fuels and electricity, such fuels and electricity should be exempted from taxation for ten years. Energy products and electricity used for the remaining intra-EU waterborne navigation should be subject to the standard levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels and electricity in the Member States. |
Amendment 5
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (23a) Over the past 10 years, the fishing industry has made great efforts to significantly reduce fuel consumption and therefore CO2 emissions. |
Amendment 6
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (23b) Before including fisheries in the taxation of energy products, a comprehensive impact assessment should be carried out, including the socio-economic impact on fisheries and coastal communities. |
Amendment 7
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (24) For extra-EU air navigation, without prejudice to international obligations, and for extra-EU waterborne navigation, including fishing, Member States may exempt or apply the same levels of intra-EU taxation, according to the type of activity. | (24) For extra-EU air navigation, without prejudice to international obligations, and for extra-EU waterborne navigation, excluding fishing, Member States may exempt or apply the same levels of intra-EU taxation, according to the type of activity. |
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (26a) Certain exemptions or reductions in the tax level might prove necessary, in particular because of the lack of a higher degree of harmonisation at Union level, or because of the risks of a loss of international competitiveness, or because of social or environmental considerations. |
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (27) Targeted reductions in the tax level may prove necessary to incentivise the achievement of environmental protection objectives and improvements in energy efficiency of the Union productive sector. | (27) Targeted exemptions or reductions in the tax level may prove necessary to incentivise the achievement of environmental protection objectives and improvements in energy efficiency of the Union productive sector. |
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (28) Targeted reductions in the tax level may prove necessary to tackle the social impact of energy taxes. An exemption from taxation may temporarily prove necessary to protect vulnerable households. | (28) Targeted exemptions or reductions in the tax level may prove necessary to tackle the social impact of energy taxes. An exemption from taxation may prove necessary to protect vulnerable households. |
Amendment 11
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (28a) It is important to provide fishers with income diversification opportunities in other sectors of the Blue Economy in order to increase the segment's resilience making full use of the EMFAF to finance income diversification projects, supporting small-scale fisheries training and promoting synergies with other sectors of the Blue Economy. |
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (28b) The EMFAF provides financial support for the modernisation and replacement of engines in fishing vessels that use less fuel. |
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 13a | |
| In addition to the general provisions set out in Directive 92/12/EEC on exempt uses of taxable products, and without prejudice to other Union provisions, Member States shall exempt energy products supplied for use as fuel for a fishing vessel within Union waters and electricity produced on board a fishing vessel, from taxation under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse. | |
| For the purposes of this Article, ‘fishing vessel’ shall mean any vessel as defined in point (4) of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council. |
Amendment 14
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Without prejudice to Article 5, Member states shall apply, as a single use, under fiscal control not less than minimum levels of taxation as set out in Tables B and D of Annex I to energy products supplied for use as fuel to vessels, and to electricity used directly for charging electric vessels, for the purposes of intra-EU waterborne regular service navigation, fishing and freight transport. | 1. Without prejudice to Article 5, Member states shall apply, as a single use, under fiscal control not less than minimum levels of taxation as set out in Tables B and D of Annex I to energy products supplied for use as fuel to vessels, and to electricity used directly for charging electric vessels, for the purposes of intra-EU waterborne regular service navigation and freight transport. |
Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (e a) energy products supplied for use as fuel for fishing vessels on inland waterways, and electricity produced on board a fishing vessel; | |
| For the purposes of this Article, ‘fishing vessel’ shall mean any vessel as defined in point (4) of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council. |
Procedure pages
How the committees handled the text, and how their members voted on it.
Procedure – committee asked for opinion 1 paragraph
| Title | Restructuring the Union framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (recast) | |
| References | COM(2021)0563 – C9-0362/2021 – 2021/0213(CNS) | |
| Committee responsible Date announced in plenary | ECON 7.10.2021 | |
| Opinion by Date announced in plenary | PECH 7.10.2021 | |
| Rapporteur for the opinion Date appointed | Gabriel Mato 30.11.2021 | |
| Discussed in committee | 7.2.2022 | |
| Date adopted | 16.3.2022 | |
| Result of final vote | +: –: 0: | 23 5 0 |
| Members present for the final vote | Clara Aguilera, Pietro Bartolo, François-Xavier Bellamy, Isabel Carvalhais, Maria da Graça Carvalho, Rosanna Conte, Rosa D’Amato, Giuseppe Ferrandino, Søren Gade, Francisco Guerreiro, Niclas Herbst, Jan Huitema, Ladislav Ilčić, France Jamet, Pierre Karleskind, Predrag Fred Matić, Francisco José Millán Mon, Grace O’Sullivan, João Pimenta Lopes, Manuel Pizarro, Caroline Roose, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Peter van Dalen, Theodoros Zagorakis | |
| Substitutes present for the final vote | Catherine Chabaud, Valentino Grant, Petros Kokkalis |
Final vote by roll call in committee asked for opinion 3 paragraphs
23 · For
- ECR
- Ladislav Ilčić, Bert-Jan Ruissen
- ID
- Rosanna Conte, Valentino Grant
- EPP
- François-Xavier Bellamy, Maria da Graça Carvalho, Peter van Dalen, Niclas Herbst, Francisco José Millán Mon, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Theodoros Zagorakis
- Renew
- Catherine Chabaud, Søren Gade, Jan Huitema, Pierre Karleskind
- S&D
- Clara Aguilera, Pietro Bartolo, Isabel Carvalhais, Giuseppe Ferrandino, Predrag Fred Matić, Manuel Pizarro
- The Left
- Petros Kokkalis, João Pimenta Lopes
5 · Against
- ID
- France Jamet
- Greens
- Rosa D'Amato, Francisco Guerreiro, Grace O'Sullivan, Caroline Roose
0 · Abstained