Brussels, 29/05/2002 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday in Brussels, MEPs laid into the draft reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, often judging aspects of it to be unfair or unbalanced. Commissioner Franz Fischler presented his proposal to the plenary, saying that while controversy was a cornerstone of parliamentary debate, it didn't have to be quite so radical since everyone had the same objective of establishing a strategy that could provide the fishing industry with a future.
The President of the Fisheries Committee, Struan Stevenson (British Conservative) particularly welcomed the proposals to make the 6 and 12 miles fishing zones permanent and to give Member States the power to monitor these zones (along with the creation of regional advisory bodies to manage fishing, bodies composed of fishermen, fish farm representatives, scientists and leisure industry representatives). He applauded the Commission's "courage" in proposing to scrap aid for replacing the fleet, but while agreeing on the need to cut capacity, he voiced "concern" at the figures supplied by the Commission, saying that according to his calculations, Scandinavian countries fishing mainly in the Baltic, the Atlantic and the North Sea should cut capacity by 21.3%, compared with a 9% reduction for southern countries fishing in the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and the Bay of Biscay. He provided the statistics per country: a reduction of 23.3% (still in tonnage) for the United Kingdom, 25.3% for Belgium, 27.3% for Denmark, 49.7% for Sweden and 9.4% in Spain and 7.3% in Italy. He explained that these proposals were not equal and that, "Since then, it is hardly surprising that if we ask whether the Commission buckled under pressure put on it from Spain". Enrique Baron Crespo (PES, Spain) stated that he did not have any confidence on the Fishing Committee President's neutrality, "He's there to represent the interests of the EP and not for submitting calculations for this or that country", he declared in response to Mr Stevenson. The President of the group strongly regretted that this reform had ignored a number of subjects that had been broached when discussing reform of the Common Agricultural Policy but which had not been touched on at all, such as economic and social cohesion, integrated management of coastal zones, sustainable development, aqua-culture and consumer rights. Elspeth Attwool (ELDR, United Kingdom) was pleased with most of the Commission proposals but drew attention to the importance of reducing fishing capacity according to fair criteria. She considered that the proposals were "good news" for protecting young fish and endangered species such as sharks and dolphins and that the actions for fighting against illegal fishing and respect for coastal fishing on which numerous communities depend were also positive. Ian Stewart Hudghton (Greens/ALE, United Kingdom), considered that, "This package of measures contained a good number of elements which we welcome: sustainability, multi-annual management of TAC, technical measures". He was, however, worried about the commission's intentions concerning the zone beyond the 6 and 12-mile zones (key allocation of stocks) and wanted assurances on the mainatenace of certain preferences.
Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL, Spain) considers the Commission's strategy was still the same: "you are forced to cut your head off to treat your tail", he said. It is surprising that the Commission had chosen the solution of dismantling the lot, he pounded out, considering that these proposals were not equitable and that "it is surprising that one should call for fleet reductions in countries that have already carried out reductions through the MAGP but that nothing is being asked of countries that have not complied with the MAGP". The proposals are discriminatory, he maintained. Pat the Cope Gallagher (UEN, Ireland) spoke of his disappointment regarding the proposals, saying that the Commission presented a strategy that will penalise all countries because of a few. There are countries that seek to exploit resources to a maximum, far from their own shores, he recalled. He noted that the Commission is proposing to reduce capacities by 18%, which is unacceptable. Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (EPP-ED, Spain) felt Mr Fischler gives priority to fish and not to fishermen and that he also gives preference to the countries of northern Europe. Rosa Miguelez Ramos (PES, Spain) said the interests of fishermen had not been taken into account. "Within ten years you will have restored the fish stocks", she said, but the fishermen will no longer be here to exploit them. "Countries will have to import fish", she continued before going on to describe the reform envisaged as "ultraliberal".
Mr Fischler replied that, as far as access to waters is concerned, some MEPs wrongly interpreted the proposals. He denied the affirmations whereby some countries, which have made a greater effort to reduce fishing capacities, will be penalised. He made it clear that there are sanctions for those who do not meet the requirements already in force, and that those who have done more than the others will enjoy the benefits as the "fishing effort will be shared out more judiciously between Member States".