Skip to content
OPINION (COM(2021)0563 – C90362/2021 – 2021/0213(CNS))

On the proposal for a Council directive restructuring the Union framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (recast)

PECH-AD-700684

Committee on Fisheries · Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull textProcedure & committee votes
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 25 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

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.

Committee 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. In the long term it would encourage the construction of larger vessels, which are generally more energy-efficient than small-scale ones.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. A full impact assessment should be carried out before the proposal is discussed by co-legislators.
  8. 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.
  9. A new recital would say emission cuts must take into account the availability of alternatives in each affected sector.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.