The core issue is how the EP reflects the interests of fishing community worldwide when it deals with the EU Commission (EC) and Council of Ministers (CoM) in reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Over three months during the run-up to the 4 June EP elections, World Fishing has been closely examining how the industry can best make its views heard through the EP and MEPs. Over the years the EP has increased its influence and won real powers to shape policy put forward by the EC for decisions by the CoM.
The EP’s sledgehammer power to dismiss the whole of the Commission is not the best method to prise the meat out of a winkle. The smarter way is how the EP uses it right to approve or block budgets for different sectors, and usually gets the changes it wants in the proposed legislation or project.
Basically, the Commission hatches a proposal, the Parliament then matches it through amendments to fit the EP’s views, and finally the matter is agreed or fought over between national interests in the Council before being dispatched. Many fisheries ministers are also in charge of agriculture, food and rural development. This overlapping of remits and budgets is important for fishermen, especially in (usually poorer) parts of the EU. They should seek mutual advantage on policy development with hill farmers on rocky coastlines. They can collaborate for funding bids with tourism departments who want to promote ecological and health seafood cuisine and sport fishing, and work with on-land food processing industries.
Local control
In the last few years, MEPs have backed the promotion of local fisheries management as a way to solve problems around quotas, and discards. This fundamental priority has generally seen the whole EP back the work and proposals of the EP Fisheries Committee (FC). Usually, the Commission accepts amendments from the EP. Even when they disagree (and the topic is kicked into touch for handling through the ‘conciliation procedure’), the Parliament often comes out on top. So fishermen might best view the EP and EC generally as allies. Proposals for decision by ministers are that much stronger when agreed and presented as a common front.
It was no surprise therefore that, a month after announcing in April the Green Paper to discuss reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (see World Fishing, CFP reform – how’s about a new boat?, May 2009) the 25 May Fisheries Council meeting press conference opened the door for local management through decentralisation.
WF feels it only right to warn of caution when listening to how different media oracles interpreted the fish entrails of the Council meeting. There is a very long way to go from setting pan-European quotas in Brussels to actual regional and local stock strategies through CFP reform. The job for fishermen now is to work with the EP and make sure there is constant and full briefing of its Fisheries Committee members. Therefore, the BBC reports of 25 May from Brussels may have been a case of shooting the doors before the shoal has been spotted. “European fisheries ministers have concluded a meeting in Brussels with a consensus to effectively scrap current rules that decide fishing quotas”. Not so fast.
As WF has reported in the past, local management has been the EP’s theme for progress, hand in hand with national fisheries associations working with MEPs who have been prepared to speak out. That has meant hard and long slogs, putting together data to back up the various reports from the EP Fisheries Committee for plenary votes by the full Parliament. The move to more local management of the Scottish herring stocks was such an example (see WF, EU-Scottish herring democracy, February 2009). That was a product of the efforts of a combination of fishing representatives from Scotland linking hands with the elected representatives from the Scottish and European Parliaments. Bertie Armstrong, Chief Executive of the Scottish Fisheries Federation, made clear then that the changes on herring would involve a lot of funding which was in short supply and much hard work by fishermen for refitting in a very tight timescale.
After the 25 May Council, Mr Armstrong was just as cautious, saying: “The EC has made it quite clear that there will be no controls on their thinking and are considering radical solutions. This is to be welcomed – as long as the final measures agreed are workable, adding that “… there seems to be agreement at the Fisheries Council that it is ready to let go and decentralise fisheries policy.” Reiterating the position of MEPs such as Struan Stevenson of Scotland, Mr Armstrong said there needs to be “a more intelligent way of managing fisheries and this includes the decentralisation of policy where regional management can produce regional solutions…” .
But the pressure will need to be kept up. Commission officials have said that while the EC is “only legally bound to review some parts of the CFP by 2012, the prevailing situation, particularly as regards stocks and fleet overcapacity, has convinced it of the need to launch the reform process already now.”
The industry needs to get on and work with national MPs who have fishing constituencies as well as MEPs. Everything has to be on the table before the official consultation on the Green Paper ends on 31 December this year. The Commission aims to sum up all views by mid-2010. Then there will be more consultations with stakeholders. The Commission will then develop a “proposal for a new basic regulation. This could then be presented to the European Parliament and Council early in 2011, with a view for adoption in 2012,” EC officials say.
EP issues
If we look back over the various reports from the EP, we can see what has preoccupied MEPs. A living wage for fishermen, safety, discards, help with fuel costs, animal welfare, the whaling ban and shark sustainability, stronger dialogue between scientists and fishermen, controls on recreational fishing, and so forth. These will need to be taken into account by the industry when devising strategies for CFP reform. While the EP effectively has the last say over what the ministers decide, based on proposals from the Commission, the industry also has to take into account the way MEPs are responding to public opinion.
The most recent example would be the ban on the import of seal products into the EU. The decision is a reflection of wide ecological and environmental issues and animal welfare concerns throughout the EP. The formal statement from the EP shows how uncompromising it is ready to be: “The placing on the market of seal products shall be allowed only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and which contribute to their subsistence. These conditions shall apply at the time or point of import for imported products”. This was passed by 550 votes in favour, 49 against and 41 abstentions. At the same time, the EP is aware of the problems faced by farmers in repelling seal attacks on their cages so there is still a ‘seal’ issue on the table.
The growing practice of moving live product fish (whether tuna for growing-on, or air or road shipping seafood to restaurants) is also sure to increase debate also about welfare methods in farming on land and at sea. This is an area where a number of NGOs will be mounting campaigns among MEPs.
WF has already spelt out climate change issues (WF, Climate cash – turning past into future, June 2009) and how the EU is responding. These also need to be part and parcel of how the industry sees its role, not only in conserving stocks but ensuring they are sustainable in the big push by the public towards greater environmental responsibility. Fishermen can lead from the front as 'warrior' environmentalists. They can be on the alert for and ready to condemn land pollution by farmers through fertilisers, by chemical plants through toxic dumping or sly pollution of rivers, by cargo ships clandestinely dumping ballast or worse, barrels of black-market toxins on the high seas. And the control of IUU fishing across the globe is also an issue where honest fishermen can be at the forefront.
During WF’s recent visit to Brussels it was striking how MEPs were ready to take on vested interests, whatever the cost. It is good to have allies who are ready not only to take to task the Commission, Council and multinationals, but countries such as the US, China or Russia. En route to a meeting with one of the EP’s most powerful MEPs, Finn Satu Hassi, Vice Chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the EP’s defiance and independence was symbolised by the name over one of the main meeting rooms in the Brussels’ parliament building. “Anna Politkovskaya”, an uncompromising tribute to the investigative work and human rights reporting of the Russian journalist and Kremlin critic from Novaya Gazeta newspaper, who was murdered in October 2006.
Beyond the EU
The point to be made here is that the MEP's remit is to defend not only the citizens and social values of the EU but also to promote those same values across the world. On climate change and pollution of the environment, there have been those who have put the blame on China or India for a major share of global pollution which they dispute. Ms Hassi made the point “…what they say, which is also true, is that the industrialised countries, the present rich countries...have made the mess, so it is mainly our emissions which have caused the climate change so far and they are perfectly right when they say the responsibility is mainly on us to clean up the mess. And this means in practice…this is not doable without big money from our side…This is simply not possible with funding from these countries alone. We must contribute.” She added that the EP had now voted a resolution through, stipulating that the EU and EU Member States should contribute at least €30bn a year for this help to developing countries.
WF has earlier spelt out the cash and help implications of the Commission’s global climate change strategy for coastal fishing regions at risk, particularly in low-lying areas and islands. At the same time, the fishing industry in those developing countries with large stocks which they cannot fully tap needs to seek support from the EP when it comes to negotiating licences for EU vessels to work those stocks. Licences, climate change, a cleaner environment, should all be part of a holistic strategy when developing countries are dealing with the EU. This may be difficult for the larger fishing combines to stomach as they rely on imported product (to make up the EU fish shortfall of more than 60 per cent) needed to feed their processing operations either in Europe or for outsourced operations. But one-sided profit is not acceptable to the EP.
This is where the interface between deep-sea and coastal fishermen may cause tensions. Part of the reform of the CFP already on the table is a different regime for smaller coastal operations, in recognition of their being more exposed to market fluctuations, their shallower pockets, their importance to local communities and the direct promotion of healthy foods and educating a new school generation to eat fish. These should be seen as specific issues through which MEPs can be either willingly brought on board or monitored to ensure they are taking real actions to promote these issues. Local management should mean local political involvement.
As we go to press, there are still a few weeks before membership of the EP’s committees, including fisheries, is settled between the different political groups. Back in March, gossip in the Parliament and Commission suggested there would be a lot of new faces in the EP and FC. Events since then have turned that into a fact, not least the backlash over national MPs’ expenses in the UK which spilled over during the campaigns into the costs of MEPs.
There is a sting in the tail which we cannot hide. Some three weeks before the June election, WF went to some effort to put out a multilingual set of questions. The idea was MEPs on the present FC would answer a few and have a direct say on issues of particular interest to them. One was: “How important is support from fishermen and their families and companies for the FC?” And another: “Do you have regular meetings with your fisheries’ constituents on their home ground?”
A few came back saying they would try to write from the campaign trail. A number of others acknowledged receipt but did not follow up, and half a dozen were returned: “deleted without being read”.
If this worries you too, it would seem all the more important that voters contact all members on the new FC. A new parliament means a new start – make sure your MEPs are ready to serve you. That is what they are paid to do.
