Brussels, 22/04/2013 (Agence Europe) - The Irish Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers hopes to conclude a European Parliament/Council agreement on the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) in mid-May. The task will not be an easy one, but most of the European fisheries ministers supported the need to speed up the work in Luxembourg on Monday 22 April, with mixed views on the concessions to be granted to the EP with a view to a final deal.
In the absence of an agreement on fisheries reform in May or June (the Presidency prefers to reserve the June Council for the reform of the common agriculture policy, the CAP), it will not be possible for the Lithuanian Presidency to conclude CFP reform and negotiations on the European fund for fisheries and aquaculture 2014-2020 by the end of 2013. In addition, the European elections of May 2014 could, in the event of a breakdown, delay the prospect of a compromise on this matter until the end of 2014 at best.
At Monday's Fisheries Council, Simon Coveney, the Irish minister, indicated that he intended to step up the pace of the trialogue meetings to be held this week. “We are going to try to maintain the Council's position as far as possible, even though we will have to make compromises in certain areas”, he said after the ministers' debate. His aim is for the May Council to be used to conclude a revised mandate for compromise with the EP. “Agreement is in sight”, said Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki, who feels that the positions between the Council and the EP “are not as far apart as they appear to be”, even on the most sensitive issues, such as maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and the ban on discards.
Work programme. Are the member states prepared to support the intensive work programme scheduled for the coming weeks in order to allow the Council's mandate to be examined by the Coreper on 2 May and, if necessary, by the Council on 13 and 14 May? Most ministers (including Denmark, Finland, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Romania, Sweden and Cyprus) replied yes to this question without hesitating. The time has come to take action, said the German minister, who fears that the matter could be put back to the next legislative period in the event of a deadlock in May-June. Some of the “fisherman's friends” countries, mainly Spain, but also France, Poland, Belgium and Malta, stressed that the timetable should not take priority over the substance of the dossier, because the most important thing is to achieve a reform which can be accepted and implemented by the sector. “It is vital that we ensure that the reform is practicable”, said the French minister, Frédéric Cuvillier. France is open to a speeded-up timetable, but this must not be seen as more important than the substance.
“We are favourable to an agreement, as long as a raft of requirements is respected”, said the Spanish minister, Miguel Arias Canete, starting with the principle of relative stability. “No country must see its fishing opportunity cut significantly”, he warned.
Flexibility. Within the framework of the positions of the Parliament and the Council, how much flexibility is there on these issues? The countries were divided over the concessions to be granted to the EP in the negotiations to reach an agreement. Denmark is prepared to show flexibility (on the MSY and on the details of the ban on discards). The UK asked the Council to show flexibility on discards and the MSY.
France, Spain, Poland and Belgium, amongst others, were fairly unyielding over discards and the MSY as it is vital, they argue, that a solution which is realistic for fishermen be achieved. Decisions on the MSY, the ban on discards and regionalisation must keep in place the same game rules for all species and fishing areas, in order to avoid any renationalisation of the CFP, the Spanish minister stressed.
As regards the MSY, most of the ministers (France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium, and others) agreed that fishing mortality should be used as a criterion from 2015 onwards wherever possible, and by 2020 at the latest, rather than the biomass level (as proposed by the EP). Many countries (Italy, France, Spain, Poland, et al.) also supported the derogations laid down by the Council (notably an authorised percentage of discards down from 9% to 7%).
On discards, France is opposed to an extension (called for by the EP) of the scope of application of the landing obligation. It feels that the discards ban should apply solely to species subject to TACs (total allowable catch) and quotas or minimum landing sizes (in the Mediterranean).
Most ministers (including Germany, Denmark, France, Finland and the UK) are opposed to the EP's position on regionalisation. According to the Council, this approach brings with it the risk of a renationalisation of the CFP. Similarly, the EP's demands on the management of capacity are felt to be too greedy. The EP is proposing that EU funding be halted if the countries' reports on the balance between the capacity of their fleet and fishing opportunity are not submitted or if the programme is not adhered to.
On the multi-annual plans, the Presidency is actively seeking a solution to allow the reform to be moved forward. The EP and the Commission have consulted the Court of Justice of the EU regarding a decision made by the Council last December to modify certain aspects of the regulation regarding the reconstitution stocks for cod by virtue of Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Treaty of Lisbon. The Presidency takes the view that the institutions must work in a legally neutral manner which respects the positions of the EP and of the Council in the framework of the legislation on the reform. (LC/transl.fl)