Drama on the high seas

Date: 14/12/1995

HIS year did not bring the crisis in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) to a head in the way that many had expected. Instead, it was left to EU vessels fishing in international waters to provide the media with a high-profile fisheries dispute.

The furore over 27,000 tonnes of Greenland halibut in the waters off Newfoundland, which led to clashes between Canadian patrol boats and Spanish trawlers on the high seas and threatened long-term damage to the EU's relations with Ottawa, once again brought the precarious position of world fisheries resources - and the increasing desperation of EU fishermen to maintain a hold on dwindling stocks - back under the spotlight.

Although there have been significant advances in fisheries controls in the course of 1995, their worth has yet to be proven and they have not dealt with the overriding problem facing the industry.

Quite simply, there are too many fishermen chasing too few stocks.

Every year, EU fisheries ministers are confronted with scientific advice calling for deep cuts in fishing effort. But almost without fail, the agreements hammered out in the Council of Ministers just a few days before Christmas become damage limitation exercises by governments deeply conscious of the emotional power wielded by the influential fishing lobbies who follow proceedings from nearby Brussels hotels. No one expects next week's meeting of fisheries ministers on 21-22 December to be any different.

The increasing squeeze on resources has given rise to calls in some quarters for member states to withdraw from the CFP.

But, quite apart from the clear legal difficulties which would be involved in such a move, there is considerable doubt that giving national authorities control over fish stocks would actually make very much difference.

One of the most vocal campaigns in favour of withdrawal from the CFP is being waged by certain UK fishermen's associations under the banner of Save Britain's Fish (SBF). They base their argument on the notion that if control over an exclusive 200-mile zone could be returned to the UK authorities, British fishermen could make the living they have been denied by decisions made in Brussels.

According to SBF's John Ashworth, the concern felt in the UK is finding an increasing resonance in other member states, particularly Ireland, Portugal and France.

But it is questionable whether the authorities in London, Dublin, Lisbon or Paris would have any more leeway for granting fishing opportunities than are provided for by decisions taken centrally in Brussels.

Indeed, the concept of 'Brussels' has often provided national governments with a convenient target to deflect dissent over the decisions taken at their own bidding.

The CFP is also firmly entrenched in the Treaty of Rome and if one member state were to withdraw, would this not open the door to the 'Europe à la Carte' rejected by Commission President Jacques Santer and many EU governments?

Withdrawal would also mean an end to the structural fund money which, although limited, is making a contribution to efforts to bring the EU's bloated fishing fleet into line with the resources available.

Without doubt, much of the impetus for anti-CFP sentiment comes from not totally unjustified claims of illegal fishing, particularly by Spanish vessels. Yet privately, experts from most member states admit that the problem of 'black fish' is by no means restricted to the Iberian peninsular.

In a paper drawn up earlier this year, the Commission rejected calls for withdrawal from the CFP, branding them as “simplistic”.

Officials claimed that a trans-national management system was essential because of the mobility of fish stocks, which cannot be penned in like cattle. To do away with the CFP “would risk uncontrolled exploitation of the stocks by different fleets”, they warned.

They also argued that the CFP opened up EU markets to fisheries products from member states such as the UK, and offered crucial market support and structural payments. The Commission also underlined the importance of its ability to negotiate access to third country waters, adding: “There is no guarantee that member states would secure deals as favourable by bilateral negotiations.”

There have been signs this year that crucial steps are finally being taken in adopting effective control measures to keep the activities of fishermen in line with quotas.

At their meetings in June and October, fisheries ministers tied up virtually all the details of the control measures to apply in western waters from 1 January next year, a move precipitated by the imminent full accession to the CFP of Spain and Portugal, previously excluded from equal rights with the rest of the EU under transitional measures negotiated before they joined the Union in 1986.

But although the system of 'kilowatt days' and the reporting requirements are supposed to act as a possible blueprint for all EU waters, Fisheries Commissioner Emma Bonino has already expressed doubts that the measures agreed by ministers will be tough enough.

The original proposals made by DGXIV, the Directorate-General for fisheries, for a thorough 'hail system', were rejected by ministers as too bureaucratic.

Even though this reflects a general trend towards avoiding too much red tape, it seems perverse that countries which were concerned to avoid illegal fishing should water down proposals aimed specifically at achieving this.

Although it is popular to place the blame for malpractice at the door of the Commission, much of it continues to lie with the member states themselves, who jealously cling on to their responsibility for enforcing the rules.

Many experts are now asking whether it would not be better to establish an EU fisheries inspectorate with genuine teeth. This would finally ensure that fishermen were controlled consistently in all the Union's waters.

But the effectiveness of such control measures is undermined by the annual tradition at the December meeting for EU fisheries ministers to set Total Allowable Catches (TACs) at levels well above those recommended by scientists.

Despite often critical stock situations for several of the key species, fisheries ministers find themselves politically unable to leave the December Council without at least some concessions to offer fisheries lobbies at home. But this weakness cannot hide the basic problem which continues to dog the fisheries sector - that too many vessels are pursuing too few fish.

Although reductions in fishing capacity have been agreed under the so-called 'Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes', the scope of the scheme remains limited and there still appear to be few alternative sources of employment in traditional fishing regions.

The now-resolved dispute with Norway over the shared stocks in the North Sea highlighted once again one of the reasons why Norwegians chose to say 'No' to EU membership last year.

There was a feeling, particularly in Norway's coastal communities, that to join the EU would mean the loss of total control over the management of Norwegian fish stocks.

'No' campaigners claimed some EU members were simply intent on seeking new fishing grounds for the Unions's oversized fishing fleets.

The difficulties involved in finding a consensus between 15 different governments and the Commission has also been highlighted recently by the EU's failure to decide who has competence to sign the new United Nations accord on managing the fishing of “straddling fish stocks and highly-migratory species”, a deal which should mean the end of disputes such as that over Greenland halibut.

Although the EU was party to the agreement struck in August, which even the non-governmental organisations largely welcomed, it is unable to sign up to the accord because of an internal dispute over whether this should be done by member states or by the Commission.

“The problem is that the Union needs a crisis before it can take any decisions. It's the standard method of progress in the EU,” commented a disgruntled non-EU diplomat.