The answer to this question may have as many vertices as you want. We want to focus on fishing activity and the future of the fisheries sector. At a time when the Basque Government is deciding what to do with economic activity, it has insisted that the primary sector is strategic, food is essential and the work of the baserritars and fishermen has gone higher than ever. However, the activity of fishermen is very limited by the coronavirus crisis. Fishermen who were already in a situation of severe precariousness have been given conditions that are now systemic and insurmountable: in many boats they cannot maintain the minimum distance and cannot guarantee the safety of not infecting each other. On the other hand, the fish market has been completely disfigured and price dance does not make the activity profitable.

In the light of what we heard in the media and the way this sector has behaved in the past, our suspicion is that the bet to get out of this crisis is to wait for the subsidies that Europe (or its administrations) distributes. If this is the solution, the question is inevitable. Why do we need fishing if this activity is not used to get food when there is more need? What is the point of keeping this sector with public money if it is not going to fulfil its social function? Why accept this impact on biodiversity and natural heritage to a non-strategic activity? We believe that fishing is essential for food sovereignty. It is up to the Administration to manage this economic activity and the associated professions, but in the confidence that we can make contributions in this regard, these are our proposals.

First of all, the fleet seems to be staying and this can be beneficial for fishermen, as they will reduce the risk of getting sick and the commercial interest of the fish, as we will leave them alone, and in this way, the natural cycle and the setting they carry out here will do so quietly. But in order for this situation to be beneficial, fishermen, as well as other workers, must be compensated and the impact that this non-fishing period has had on fish stocks must be measured. Both are viable and the Administration has the means to do so.

The second option is to ensure fish consumption. To this end, fishing should be maintained, but in a controlled and selective manner. Every day/week and in turns, 2 boats can be taken from each port (6 from Gipuzkoa and 6 from Bizkaia), always guaranteeing the health conditions of the fishermen who would embark upon the tests and discarded the possibilities of mutual contagion), allowing the provision of the fish cofradías of the day and the direct sale of the fish at a fixed price. This price would regulate the market so that fishers do not have illegal advantages in this situation. Fishing activity should also be limited, respecting quotas and measures, and working outside 12 miles to avoid greater than usual damage to fishing stocks. Standards can be adjusted and tightened with scientific and technical criteria, respecting biodiversity, to ensure daily consumption of fish. The Administration is empowered to do so.

These are just two feasible proposals, both aimed at improving the sense and situation of fishing activity. Because if in this crisis fishing is not going to play its social role, we should ask ourselves what we are promoting and maintaining with public money, because fish is a natural heritage, and that can only justify the public benefits of exploitation.

Ondarroa 12 miles

on behalf of the Association:

Leo Belaustegi and Aitziber Sarobe