The European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries (PECH) debated the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for fisheries and aquaculture on 6 May 2026, exposing divisions over budget ring-fencing, the role of Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs), and the effectiveness of the European Maritime and Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF).
MFF simplification vs. dilution of fisheries support A central dispute pitted those fearing that simplification would dilute fisheries support against the Commission's defence of a EUR 2 billion floor. Expert Pavel Salz warned that ring-fencing and control funding risk being weakened, while the Commission argued the floor ensures a baseline. Isabelle Le Callennec (EPP) called the EUR 2 billion unacceptable, and Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left) worried fisheries would lose out to agriculture in broader national plans.
FLAGs integration opposed Ana Miranda (Greens/EFA) and Carmen Crespo (EPP) opposed integrating FLAGs into broader envelopes, stressing their unique territorial role in coastal communities. The committee broadly valued FLAGs, but the Commission's push for flexibility raised concerns.
EMFAF effectiveness questioned Isabella Lövin (Greens/EFA) noted that some member states received zero EMFAF allocation, questioning the fund's reach. Francisco José Millán Mon (EPP) questioned allocating fewer resources to known problems. The Commission defended national competence in allocation.
Aquaculture stagnation and Article 17 Lorena de la Cruz Iglesias (Commission) attributed aquaculture stagnation to licensing delays and political priority. France Jamet (PfE) called for faster licences. On Article 17 quota allocation, Lövin pushed for mandatory environmental criteria, while the Commission defended national competence.
Consensus and next steps Despite disagreements, consensus emerged on valuing FLAGs, reducing bureaucracy, supporting data collection, and addressing aquaculture barriers. The committee will continue MFF scrutiny and evaluate the Common Fisheries Policy in June.
Stakeholder impacts The debate highlights trade-offs: EU producers face uncertainty over budget levels and simplification, while national authorities gain flexibility but risk diluted fisheries focus. FLAGs and coastal communities may lose dedicated support if integrated into broader envelopes. Environmental NGOs see Article 17 as a lever for sustainability, but mandatory criteria could increase administrative burden for fishers.