The "good relations" (and the others). The conclusions reached by the EU Council over the fishing problems with Morocco are, in my opinion, positive, if they reflect a political policy and do not stem from negotiating tactics. In fact, a few elements allow one to suspect that the two parties have presently not reached one for "good reasons", and that the situation remains precarious and unstable.
What are these "good reasons"? Firstly it is the desire to radically reduce the excessive catches that compromise the sustainability of the fish resources and, secondly, the recognition of the fact that the Moroccan natural wealth must benefit the local population as a priority. Prior to the expiry of the previous agreement, the Moroccan authorities had indicated that it would not be renewed for the reasons cited above. The European authorities agreed with this new policy, but it was not possible to reach an agreement on the number of European ships allowed to undertake their activity in the Moroccan waters, nor over the volume of catches permitted, or the financial compensation.
Save the Mediterranean Sea. Under these conditions, the Council renounced a new fishing agreement with Morocco and decided to launch a restructuring programme for the Community fleet concerned and the re-training of fishermen. This conclusion appears to me to be both: in accordance with the requirement of saving the Mediterranean Sea; respectful of the good relations between the EU and Morocco; concerned with avoiding unmanageable social and economic repercussions for the European regions concerned. It is a painful solution, but imposed for reasons of general interest. So what are the clues that cause the perplexity? They come from both sides. Here they are.
From the Moroccan side. The catches for 2000 have been the most significant ever made in the Moroccan waters. Certain fishing rights would have been sold to Asian countries and even to a Community country. If the EU increases it offer of financial compensation, Morocco could increase the quotas granted to the EU. We could then wonder if the priority for Rabat is truly to safeguard the resources or simply to maximise the amount of money that it is possible to draw from the situation. It would be good if Rabat clearly answer the three points cited above.
From the Spanish and European side in general. The reaction of the Fisheries Council to the Commission Green Paper on the reform of the common fisheries policy gave the impression that a significant share of the Ministers are not entirely conscious of the seriousness of the situation. In theory, and with regard to principals, they denounce the imbalance between the catches and the resources as well as the negative effect that results from this for biodiversity and in the document approved for the attention of the Gothenburg Summit, they firmly move for a reduction of the European fishing activity. Though as soon as it is a question of quotas to be reduced and boats to be scrapped, the tone of several Ministers are very different; a simple comparison, in the story published in our bulleting of 26 April, p.11, between the two main paragraphs and the third is instructive with regard to this. Last element: it is agreed that a less restrictive offer to Morocco for access to Moroccan waters would bring the EU to greater financial generosity.
We would say: would a compromise not be the best solution? Yes, on condition of not forgetting that the Mediterranean is only one sea and that nature is not situated according to the lines drawn by men on the map to share the fishing areas. If the pillage continues, fish stocks will disappear for all; adding to the pillage the multiple causes of disastrous pollution that affect this sea, the Mediterranean would be lost for all bordering countries. Even from the purely economic point of view, it is not healthy that the activity of three European regions (Andalusia, Galicia, Canary Islands) depend excessively on the good will of third countries. For lack of taking stock and partially converting the economy of the regions, rather than search, at high cost, for temporary and fragile solutions. (F.R.)