Dear 'Fish Fighter',
I know you want to see a sustainable fisheries policy adopted so I thought you might like to know more about the current state of play in Brussels about plans to change the EU's Common Fisheries Policy.
First of all the mechanics of the process....
The European Commission's proposals for reform were published last June. They are now being considered in a parallel process by Ministers (really by their civil servants) in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, and by MEPs on the Environment and Fisheries Committees in the European Parliament.
Over the next few months the key dates are these:
8 May - MEPs vote on the 105 amendments I have proposed in a report for the Environment Committee, and the 457 amendments that have been tabled to it by other MEPs. Despite all the work involved in preparing these we simply make recommendations to the Fisheries Committee that they can overturn.
12 June - Ministers try to agree a common position on all the issues in the Council.
11 July - MEPs vote in the Fisheries Committee.
11 Sept - The entire European Parliament votes on the Fisheries Committee's recommendations and any amendments to these.
Ministers and MEPs work separately for most of the while, with the Commission trying to 'facilitate' the process and resolve issues that are raised and which perhaps reveal weaknesses in the draft legislation. Eventually we all have to come together and reconcile our differences through compromise but it is not expected that this process will be fast-tracked. Current speculation is that we will be negotiating a final agreement on the reform package this time next year, after a 2nd reading vote in Parliament.
This is how the debate is playing out.
The Commission is proposing that future policy should be based on each fishery (there are hundreds) having a long term management plan, prepared and based on best scientific advice, with the objective of achieving maximum sustainable yield by 2015, and being implemented by a local or regional advisory council of fishermen, scientists and others with a relevant interest.
That may sound simple and positive enough, but it gets complicated when you look at the details.
* Long term management plans will take well in excess of a decade to prepare for every fishery. So what happens in the meantime?
* Where is the scientific advice? There is none publicly available for two-thirds of fisheries, and this after 30 years of the CFP! Some countries seem to have deliberately avoided arranging for it to be obtained.
* What is maximum sustainable yield? The general view seems to be that we would cut fish mortality (stop overfishing) by 2015 but that it will take a lot longer to rebuild fish stocks depending on the type of fishery. But how many jobs will have to go in the short term to allow us to achieve this more benign position?
* More regional decision-making is a popular idea with many, but advisory councils do not exist everywhere even in fledgling form. How much control should they have, and how will they be supervised?
* While long term plans are prepared, how do we stop Fisheries Ministers setting quotas too high each year as they have done so often in the past?
Then there is the major issue of discards, and how to encourage a reduction in bycatch and the take up of more selective fishing gear. Ideally this should be negotiated on a fishery by fishery basis but the Commission wants a fixed date from which the discard of commercial fish will be banned. It believes that this is essential to change the culture and promote the use of selective gear, but it is opposed by most fishermen and many governments. Spain, France and Italy have drafted a declaration claiming that it is "unrealistic" but have not formally tabled it yet.
With too many boats chasing too few fish across Europe a reduction in the overall capacity of fishing fleets is essential if fishing is to be sustainable environmentally and economically. The Commission has proposed that each country prepares a rights-based management scheme of its own, but fears that some such schemes can lead to a concentration of ownership has generated much opposition. But there is no easy way out. In Scotland last week I talked with some commercially very successful skippers, but they would be the first to admit that their profitability comes in part from the huge reduction in the size of the Scottish fishing fleet achieved in recent years.
Finally there is the issue of money, with €6 billion of EU subsidies available over the next six years. Does it go towards decommissioning and scrapping (which has led in the past to the money simply being invested in bigger and 'better' fishing vessels) or does it go towards helping coastal communities and small scale fishermen adjust to the changes that will take place?
I could write a great deal more about the political debate now taking place, and about who is strong and who is weak, but this email is long enough already.
Let me ask one thing of you.
Nigel Farage MEP is the leader of UKIP and a member of the European Parliament's Fisheries Committee, although he has yet to attend a single meeting. UKIP is opposed to British membership of the EU and therefore also to the CFP. Amendments to this effect can be tabled but they will be opposed by more than 90% of MEPs and will be lost.
So what will Nigel Farage and UKIP do then? The Fisheries Committee is almost evenly divided between reformers and those who oppose change. Having had his chance to vote for his beliefs, and lost, will Farage support positive reforms to create a more sustainable policy, will he vote against them, or will he abstain and risk reform being lost? By the way, Britain's fish stocks were declining at a dramatic pace even before we joined the 'Common Market' some 40 years ago, so let there be no pretence that everything was wonderful then.
I invite you to put the question to him: nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu
With regards
Chris Davies MEP
Liberal Democrat environment spokesman
Secretary,'Fish for the Future' cross-party group
European Parliament