EU takes stock of fishing policy reform

Date: 10/04/1997

Although a review of one of the Union's most controversial policies is still some way off, an in-depth debate on the future of fishing policy is well under way. Michael Mann reports.

IT may be more than five years away, but the forthcoming review of one of the EU's most controversial policies is already exercising the minds of everyone affected by it.

As the EU prepares for a wide-ranging debate on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), Fisheries Commissioner Emma Bonino claims she - for one - is keeping an open mind.

Given the depth of feeling the issue arouses, Bonino may be glad that she is unlikely to be in her current post when the crunch comes. But she is not shirking her responsibility to at least lay the groundwork for whoever is running fisheries policy at the start of the next millennium.

“It is important to get rid of a few basic myths, in particular any idea that on 1 January 2003, the CFP will simply cease to exist. The Commissioner is ready to begin immediately an in-depth exchange of views with the widest range of people involved in the sector. We have no fixed opening position,” said Bonino's spokesman.

Fleets may be contracting right across the Union as fish stocks continue to dwindle, but fishing never ceases to create headlines.

Whether it be accusations of transatlantic piracy during the EU-Canada 'fish war' of 1995 or disputes over illegal drift nets, the sector stirs emotions like few others. Fishermen are a notoriously tough bunch and are well aware that their future is under threat as never before.

While the CFP - finally brought under a single umbrella in 1983 - has the rare distinction of satisfying virtually no one connected with it, there are few who can come up with a rational alternative which is likely to attract a consensus.

Even its defenders admit all is not rosy. “It has been vital to manage resources under a common policy, but obviously things need to evolve and there is much room for improvement,” says one Commission official.

The review, promised by the end of 2002, has somehow to strike a balance between ensuring the sustainable management of diminishing resources and the interests of fishermen often living in the most remote regions of the Union with few alternative employment opportunities.

Some propose radical reform; others are more circumspect, preferring to set in stone for posterity those elements of the current set-up which favour their own interests. Others still would prefer merely to tinker around the edges.

“My impression is that the Commission does not really foresee any serious change to the existing system,” says Frank Doyle, of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation (IFO).

There is a growing feeling in some quarters that the slightest hint of major reform could trigger the sort of free- for-all which might undermine even the limited successes of the current EU conservation policy.

Spanish MEP Carmen Fraga Estevez, recently elected chairwoman of the Parliament's fisheries committee, takes the opposite view. “I think we have to change the CFP radically. It is a failure because it is very complicated to control and no one is actually controlling it,” she says.

Among her visions for the future are greater powers of control for the European Commission to combat fraud and misreporting, and an end to the annual quota-fixing jamboree in December through the introduction of an overall ceiling on catches, allowing individual fleets to compete for licences. She also argues that Total Allowable Catches (TACs) should be set multiannually by scientists rather than ministers.

The election of a Spaniard to lead the committee reflects the dominant role her country often plays in political machinations over fisheries policy.

Spain has by far the largest fleet in the Union and has not been shy in exercising its veto when its fishing interests have been under threat.

Spanish government officials stress that they are still formulating their ideas for the future shape of the CFP. But it is clear that Madrid would prefer the cornerstone of the policy - the concept of 'relative stability' - to be recalculated. This is the arrangement under which each member state is guaranteed the same percentage share of each TAC, regardless how high it is set.

“There is a need for recalculation, but first we have to investigate what new methods we could use to do this,” said a Spanish official.

He stressed that the fleet reduction schemes currently under negotiation in the Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP) were a necessary evil, but claimed they ran counter to the maintenance of relative stability.

Doyle believes the current share-out is increasingly obsolete since it was calculated on the basis of a reference period from 1973 to 1978. He says revised ratios must be introduced “to reflect the future requirements of coastal regions rather than historic catching performance”.

The Irish argue a new CFP must give priority rights to those nearest to the stocks being fished and extend the six- and 12-mile exclusive fishery zones around each member state.

They are not alone, with several countries pushing the idea of greater 'subsidiarity' in fisheries policy. “We are looking for each member state to be given greater authority to control fisheries in its own waters to get away from the blanket approach which has been one of the weaknesses of the CFP,” says Barry Deas, of England's National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.

Bob Allan, of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, goes further, suggesting CFP policy-making could “be devolved on a zonal basis”. This idea, which is certain to be rejected out of hand because of its wider political connotations, would mean that only those countries whose fleets operate in the North Sea would be allowed to vote on decisions affecting these fisheries.

Hand in hand with this concept is the growing belief that the industry itself must play a more central role in policy formulation. Bonino has shown herself to be sensitive to the need for consultation in her efforts to sell the policy's benefits to an increasingly sceptical industry.

Such scepticism has been magnified among British fishermen by the 'flagships issue', which allows Spanish 'quota hoppers' to fish for British quotas under a UK flag.

British minister Tony Baldry has talked himself into a corner by refusing to agree the MAGP until quota hopping has been stopped. But agreement by majority vote on a deal on effort reduction nevertheless seems likely at next week's meeting of fisheries ministers in Luxembourg.

A Spanish government official bluntly rejected UK concerns. “If Spanish firms enjoy an advantage because of the single market, we have nothing to say. We need to respect the Union treaty,” he said.

Fortunately for the fish, it is not just politicians and fishermen who will have an input into the decisions which will affect the future health of Europe's maritime resources.

Environmentalists have been heartened by the outcome of the recent joint conference of fisheries and environment ministers of North Sea states, which pledged to ensure an enhanced commitment to sustainable fisheries.

EU policy will also inevitably be increasingly determined by international agreements such as the United Nations deal on highly migratory species.

Fisheries analyst Hélène Bours underlines environmentalists' concern that as stocks in EU waters dwindle, the Union will conclude more bilateral agreements with developing countries and wreak similar havoc elsewhere.

Aside from these highly political issues, the review will have to tackle a multitude of less emotive but equally important questions.

Europêche - which has the unenviable task of lobbying the EU institutions on behalf of a fractious and diverse European fishing industry - highlights the possibility of new conservation boxes with greater restrictions on fishing, a reduction in catches of juvenile fish, reducing the wasteful practice of discarding non-quota fish caught by mistake and agreeing acceptable technical measures.

For many, the key to a more satis-factory CFP is improving the controls over fishermen which have historically proved highly ineffective.

The system of permits and controls adopted from last year for the waters west of the British Isles could form the model for the future, despite accusations of unnecessary bureaucracy. Many fishermen blame red tape for alienating the industry in the first place and demand that the rules be made more comprehensible. But SFF's Bob Allan admits “it is hard to reconcile simplification with effective controls”.

It does not require too much courage to predict that the review process in 2002 will bring forward many opinions but achieve few meaningful changes.

And the Commission's hope, expressed in last year's report on the CFP, “that discussing the future of fishing can go on being a lively affair without becoming overladen with emotion”, seems a vain one.