Luxembourg, 18/06/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European ministers responsible for fisheries policy, who met in Council on Monday, in Luxembourg, held a policy debate on the Green Paper concerning the future of the Common Fisheries Policy.
The debate should allow the European Commission, which is to present its proposal for a framework regulation on reform before the end of the year, to note that broad divergence continues to exist, mainly concerning its reflections on fleet policy. The main issues discussed by the Council, on the basis of a questionnaire drawn up by the Swedish Presidency, may be summarised as follows:
Fleet policy: - "The mechanism of the multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGP) has had its day and CFP reform must clearly note this fact", said French Minister Jean Glavany, supported above all by Italy. Some countries, like Spain, Portugal and Denmark (which meet the CFP objectives) want, however, for these programmes to continue and above all for all Member States comply with them. Italy and France challenged the Commission analysis (supported by Germany and Belgium) whereby it is necessary to do away with 40% of the Community fleet. In this context, France denounced the "perverse" nature of the provisions that focus on tonnage and power parameters (Kw and gauge) "weakly correlated to the fishing capacity leading to putting a brake on the indispensable modernisation of fleets". The United Kingdom and Denmark called for public aid to be abolished for the construction and the modernisation of ships, while they show they are in favour of increasing capacities. France and Ireland believe public aid of this kind should also apply to the aquaculture and processing sectors.
Conservation policy: all delegations were in favour of setting in place a method for managing TAC (total allowable catches) based on a multi-annual approach in order to allow reasonable variations of TAC from one year to the next. France mainly insisted on the need to place under TACs and quotas new species whose current exploitation may compromise biological sustainability (benthic species, bass, mullet or certain cephalopods mainly found in the English Channel). France and Belgium called for greater attention to be paid to technical measures (selective material for reducing discards). Denmark and France in particular were opposed to the possibility of providing for individual transferable quotas, as Spain and Portugal request. The United Kingdom hoped for greater management flexibility.
Relative stability and access to resources. Most ministers were in favour of renewing the system applicable in the 6/12 mile zone (except for Spain which clearly pointed out that this system should be discontinued). They were also in favour of the principle of "relative stability" and to the associated keys for breakdown. Except for the main parties interested, Member States are opposed to the derogatory mechanisms such as The Hague system of preferences (that is to the advantage of Ireland and the United Kingdom). Portugal called for the 6/12 mile area to be extended to 50 miles for very outlying regions and denounced the exclusion of four Member States (Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece) from access to the North Sea. France expressed reservation about the closure of certain areas and the setting in place of protected maritime zones.
Social policy. Only France proposed the introduction of a social chapter structured around two avenues of reflection, namely: greater harmonisation of the social rules to which sailors are entitled (working conditions, working hours and social security) and attention (also noted by Ireland) to safety problems (improved working conditions for seafarers and their level of training).
Controls. Sanctions imposed in the case of infringement must be harmonised whatever the nationality of the party breaching the rules (France, Netherlands, Italy).
External chapter. France, Portugal and Spain would like to correct the very obvious imbalance of treatment between the "north" agreements and the "south" agreements, mainly concerning the financial contribution of ship owners. France encouraged the Commission to show proof, within international organisations (mainly for tuna fishing), of the same ambition and the same determination that it showed in the North Atlantic organisations, in order to make the interests of the Community fishing industry prevail.
Mediterranean fishing: due to the specific legal rules that exist in the Mediterranean, and notably the absence of economically exclusive zones, this region has until now been the poor relative of the CFP, said Mr Glavany, adding that it would be suitable to bring support to the works of the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM). The Italian Minister, Giovanni Alemanno, supported by his Greek colleague, regretted the absence, in the Green Paper, of an approach taking into account the specificities of this region and felt that it is necessary to establish a closer framework for cooperation with the third countries of the southern Mediterranean.
"There is no miracle cure or speedy remedies for redressing current problems", said Commissioner Franz Fischler, to illustrate the substantive debate that should be held at every level. He mainly insisted on the "urgent need" to reorient the role of public aid and to ensure that it now focuses more on reducing capacities. In the long term, this kind of aid in favour of modernising vessels should disappear, he said. "Fleet policy will play a primordial role in our efforts to achieve balance between the capacity of the fleet and available resources", he reaffirmed, mainly referring to a multi-annual approach for fixing TACs and to the need to neutralise the effect of technical progress in designing ships and fishing boats.
Dissension over the state of stocks
After Mr Fischler's presentation of emergency measures for reconstituting stocks of hake (adopted on 14 June) and the long-term plan for restoring stocks of hake and cod, some Member States expressed the following concerns: - Spain accused the Commission (and threatened to take action before the Court of Justice) for having taken discriminatory measures towards it concerning limits in the quantities of hake taken on board fishing boats for which it is an accessory catch when fishing other species, using nets of mesh size below 100 mm. To this the Commission replied that this measure mainly concerned French fishing vessels (330 boats out of 580, followed by Ireland with 190 and Spain with 116). In the longer term view, France expressed concern about possibly bringing into question the size of mesh for accessory catches (mainly saithe) in negotiations currently under way in Norway to elaborate emergency measures for cod.