Brussels, 05/03/2012 (Agence Europe) - The debate on 28 February between national elected representatives and the members of the European Parliament (EP) fisheries committee demonstrated, if demonstration was necessary, that ending discards, transferable quotas and the deadline for managing stocks in line with the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) principle are the most contentious issues of the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP). Several parliamentarians expressed the view that there should be more talk about fishermen and not just about fish.
European Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki broached one of the recurring criticisms of the reform proposals: the compulsory character of the changes on the areas of disagreement, such as attaining MSY by 2015, the discard ban and individual transferable concessions. She argued that a more legally binding approach was needed for the reform. The actual points can be discussed, she conceded, but there was no question of reviewing the 2015 date for managing stocks according to the MSY principle. She said that the discard ban should be phased in and pragmatic solutions found for mixed fisheries. The next European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), covering the period from 2014 to 2020, would fund more selective fishing gear, she pointed out, and she said that the Commission intended to provide 85% co-funding for projects to introduce more selective gear.
On transferable concessions, a highly controversial issue, she acknowledged, the Commission would exempt small-scale fleets, which account for 80% of the EU fleet. In addition, member states will be able to introduce their own additional safeguards as well, she said. The so-called “industrial” 20% of the EU fleet takes 60% of the total catch.
A Spanish Socialist MP suggested that the social dimension was not sufficiently taken into consideration in the reform of the CFP. He argued for the “gradual” ending of the discards ban over a period of 10 years. The transferable concessions system, he said, suited the industrial fisheries but was causing concern to the small-scale fishery in Spain. He called for small-scale fisheries to be excluded from the system.
Spanish members of the EP fisheries committee stressed the social and economic dimension of the CFP, and not just the ecological dimension which is only one of the areas in the reform. They said that solutions had to be found to the problem of fleet overcapacity, illegal catches and imported products (70% of fish consumed in the EU are imported). Some Spanish MEPs felt that the money allocated to the EMFF was not enough, given the magnitude of the reform.
A French MP said she disagreed with the Commission's “fundamentally liberal approach”. “You are seeking to get rid of two thirds of fishermen and half of vessels to achieve the mythical MSY within three years using individual transferable quotas”, she stated. She argued that what had to be addressed was not fleet overcapacity in France but ways of maintaining existing capacity and men to ensure fishing survives.
“We cannot just erase traditions that are thousands of years old”, warned an Italian MP. Of course, greater protection had to be afforded fishing stocks but environmental sustainability must go hand in hand with the social dimension, he added. Ending discards (which implies landing all the fish caught, even the species not targeted) could provide the opportunity for large fisheries companies turn to the meat and bonemeal industry. Beware of the threats to small vessels from transferable concessions, he warned. The same criticisms came from Greek MPs (not enough consideration given to the social dimension, reservations over MSY by 2015 and the discards ban, and a call for special arrangements for coastal fishing).
The Polish Senate generally backs the reform, but has concerns on a number of points, such as banning discards.
Regionalisation, problem of the legal basis. In Finland “we back the broad thrust” of the proposed reform and we support regionalisation, that is, leaving the countries more room for manoeuvre in taking technical decisions on fisheries management after advice from fishermen, said a Finnish MP. “Maximum decentralisation” of CFP decisions was called for by UK MPs, who believe the current policy to be a failure. The Lisbon Treaty does not allow us to go as far as we would like on regionalisation, said a Scottish MEP. Several of the UK parliamentarians called for a sound legal basis for regionalisation. (LC/transl.rt)