Politicians, European parliamentarians, press…The draft review of the common fisheries policy does not only represent a prime example of the application of the "Community method" (see this section of 31 May); but it is also an example of the mechanisms by which Europe is misunderstood by the citizens and felt as being responsible of a large part of their misfortunes. To take up a term recently used by Pascal Lamy, it is "not very sympathetic". In this case, the fault lies a little with everyone: part of the press, several national politicians, as well as Community institutions. It's a massive waste, where Europe is the loser, whereas in fact it is her which dares make the essential leaps to maintain the fishing activity, safeguard resources, avoid disastrous ecological damage.
The conduct of the European Union raises some question marks. Before the Commission presents its "fisheries" project, it was, rightly, concerned at rumours by which certain Member states were stepping up the pressure to prevent it from deliberating. It is neither surprising nor scandalous that certain capitals should warn Brussels of their reservations or opposition; it's always licit to express opinions. What is important is that, while taking account of all the opinions and taking on board those it considers justified, the Commission does not give into warnings and sticks by what it believes to be in the European interest. It's along those lines that Parliament first intervened, and its relevant committee convoked Franz Fischler, subjected him to a genuine interrogation and wanted to make sure that the commission's independence was being respected (se our bulletin of 24 May, pp.8/9). By approving the project, the Commission proved its independence and its political courage. And then several parliamentarians went berserk, accusing it of having done so without taking account of the warnings of certain governments!
Former EP President Nicole Fontaine was the hardest with the Commission, accusing it of acting without consulting the professionals, of not having made the effort of "going to see for itself" and of having given the picture of an irresponsible and undemocratic Europe: "technocracy without dialogue kills Europe". Yet, it is well known that the Fischler project is the outcome of three years of studies and consultations. Why then does Fontaine contribute in disseminating a false picture of technocratic Community institutions, distance from people?
The art of playing-up differences. Reading part of the press is also disappointing. Here is the headline of a major French newspaper: "Brussels wants to destroy 40% of the fishing fleet". That's not criticism, nor the expression of an opposite opinion, nor polemic. No, it's simply to claim a blatant untruth, as the number of vessels to be taken out of service in four years, according to the Fischler plan, corresponds to 8.5% of the fleet (i.e., 40% of current over-capacity). The differences are played up and inflated. The headline of a Spanish newspaper announces that Madrid will attack the reform before the Court of Justice, but in the text of the article we read that Minister Arias Canete explained that "his intention is not to block Brussels' proposal, but to improve on it".
The came the debate in the European Parliament, and what did we observe? That MEPs opposed to the Fischler plan do not even agree among themselves: on the contrary, their differences are even more virulent than the criticisms levelled at the Commission (see our bulletin of 30 May, p.12). According to Struan Stevenson, British Conservative who chairs the Parliamentary Fisheries Committee, the Commission inclined itself before Spain by proposing a very small reduction of the Greek (-1.8%), Italian (-7.3%) and Spanish (-9.4%) fleets but almost 50% of the Swedish fleet, 27.4% of Denmark's and 23.1% of the United Kingdom's. Spain's Baron Crespo accused Stenvenson of not being an objective chairman, and Stevenson replied that this figures could not be disputed, as he had worked on the computers in Parliament to calculate the planned reductions not in the number of vessels by in tonnage. But the MEPs of the Mediterranean countries accuse the Commission of treating in the same manner "traditional" fishing fleets, that do not deplete stocks and "industrial" fleets which catch anything to manufacture fish flour for cattle feed and fish farming, the effects of which, according to Ms de Palacio, are "devastating". Even countries proclaiming to be "defenders of the fishermen" do not agree among themselves; some would like the abolition of areas reserved for local fishermen (6 to 12 miles from the coast), others defend the "traditional rights" and the principle of the "relative stability" of national quotas. For Portugal, what matters is to continue to be helped by the EU to modernise its fleet.
According to the Socialist spokesman, Baron Crespo, a disagreement within a national government similar to the one that broke out in the Commission between the Vice-President Loyola de Palacio and Mr. Fischler would caused the removal of the two (from that to stating, as a Spanish newspaper did: "European Socialists call on Mr. Prodi to remove Mr. Fischler and Ms. de Palacio..).
Raising the real question. What disturbs is the impression that few people raise essential questions, the only ones that count: is it true that without courageous intervention, not only the fishing activity but the seas and oceans will be in danger? And that many essential species to biodiversity like shellfish, sharks, dolphins, sea birds will disappear? According to Fischler, the real provocation would be not to reform the current policy. The scientists and experts that the Commission consulted confirm their diagnostic: a fall in stocks is dramatic for certain species and already jeopardises the economic viability of fishing in our seas, as an activity that has increasingly lower returns is doomed to die; by waiting, the immediate cost of essential measures becomes increasingly heavy. One researcher stated: "there is no purpose in disputing the thermometer that checks the degree of fever, especially as our diagnosis is no doubt optimistic". Fishing is not threatened by European institutions, but by the fall in fish stocks, by the lack of discipline of certain fishermen who do not respect the rules and by the lack of effective controls.
A plan to be amended, not demolished. If that is the situation, the accusations, riling serve no purpose. The Commission's proposal must be seen as a positive act, a political courage, as it bring it neither popularity, nor consensus nor sympathy but responds to a duty. Which does not mean that its plan as it stands is the best possible one and is untouchable. Following the lengthy scientific and technical preparation, the political debate begins, within the European Parliament and Council, and, in a few months time, an improved plan will emerge. It's the "Community method", which no doubt - as Winston Churchill said of democracy - is the worst system, except for all others. (F.R.)