Improvements to Europe’s much-criticised Common Fisheries Policy such as those backed by MEPs this week could deprive Britain’s Eurosceptics of one of the their favourite weapons, argues Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman in the European Parliament
By an unexpectedly large majority, 502 to 137, the European Parliament voted on Wednesday to support fundamental reforms to the Common Fisheries Policy. It was the first time that MEPs had been able to use their new legislative powers over fisheries matters that give them equal authority with the Council of Ministers to amend or reject proposed European Union laws.
They insisted on an end to overfishing and for it to become a legal requirement that future decisions on the setting of annual fishing quotas be based on scientific recommendations. They supported the European Commission’s call for fishermen to be obliged to land all their catches instead of discarding, dead, millions of tonnes of perfectly edible fish every year. They said that every fishery should be managed in accordance with a long term plan to rebuild fish stocks.
The vote gave the parliament’s rapporteur, German social democrat Ulrike Rodust, a strong negotiating mandate. She must now lead discussions to hammer out a final deal with the EU’s Irish presidency, which will represent the council. This will not be easy. Although the parliament’s votes have been welcomed by the British, German and Swedish governments amongst others, it is likely that Spain and France will lead the contingent of those who want as few changes made as possible. Still, if all goes well, a compromise deal will be put to the vote before the summer recess.
All of this is important to the future of fish and the livelihoods of fishermen, but it also has a bearing on the current debate in Britain about the country’s membership of the EU. The CFP is one of the few policies frequently singled out by name for criticism by Eurosceptic critics. The decline in fish stocks is held up as an example of all that is bad when decisions are taken in Brussels instead of London, with never a mention being made of the rapid decline in fish numbers that was already taking place before the United Kingdom joined the then Common Market in 1973. But if the failures can be addressed, and fish stocks rebuilt, then the case for Britain staying within the EU and pressing for similarly positive reforms on a range of issues is reinforced.
With the blessing of the commission, the reforms including proposals for a framework to move the micromanagement of fisheries policy away from Brussels. The plan is for day to decisions increasingly to be taken in future by Regional Advisory Councils consisting of fishermen, scientists, and others with an interest in the conduct of fisheries. The North Sea RAC, which involves the UK, could be one of the first to gain such responsibilities. Although the actual extent will emerge only through practice it may be that this will be held up as an example of powers flowing back from the centre to a more local level. All this must have put MEPs from the UK Independence Party into something of a quandary. They abstained on the final CFP vote.
Reform of EU fisheries policy is strongly supported by the UK government, and it may come to be cited as the first success in David Cameron’s declared strategy to bring about change in Europe. Indeed, in his much heralded speech last month the prime minister specifically alluded to “reforming fisheries policy” as though it had already been accomplished. A genuinely progressive outcome to the negotiations on reform will also be seized upon by his pro-European coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
They will argue that it makes the case for achieving improvement through more constructive engagement and less table-thumping. They will be only too delighted if instead of having meekly to accept that the CFP is not a good advertisement for Europe, it becomes a weapon that they can wield in arguing the case that common problems need shared solutions.
publicservice.co.uk Ltd