Many people are currently expressing anxiety over international fisheries agreements entered into between the EU and third countries. Documentary film-makers and international NGOs such as WWF (World Wildlife Fund), have beaten a path to countries like Senegal and Mauritania in West Africa, intent on exposing the ravages of greedy European fishermen. Against a background of collapsing cod, hake, haddock and whiting stocks in EU waters, due, allegedly, to massive over-fishing, the critics claim that Europe is now hell bent on exporting its problems to these developing nations. Other critics point the finger at the ubiquitous Spanish fleet, claiming that such third country agreements, although funded by the EU, are only of benefit to Spain, aimed at satisfying its insatiable appetite for more and more fish.

It is time to set the record straight and perhaps the new agreement between the EU and Senegal is a good example to analyse for this purpose. Firstly, we should explore why the EU finds it necessary to enter into such agreements for international fishing rights. When Spain joined the EU it brought with it a distant water fleet of heavy trawlers, which had plied the world's oceans for centuries. Having only a narrow continental shelf and with limited fisheries resources of their own, Basque and Galician fishermen were catching cod off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador five hundred years before Christopher Columbus 'discovered' America.

There may be an interesting clue to the migratory habits of cod in this historic tale, because certainly these hardy fishermen would never have risked such epic voyages to the other side of the world if the North Sea had been bursting with cod at that time. The Brussels bureaucrats who seem determined to close down the entire UK, Irish and Danish whitefish industry in a futile attempt to re-establish cod stocks, should take a lesson from history. Cod moves in a mysterious way. Over-fishing may certainly have contributed to the virtual collapse of cod stocks in the central part of the North Sea, but global warming, pollution, the North Atlantic Drift, natural predation by seals and a host of other factors are just as likely to have driven the cod northwards, where they are now being caught in vast quantities around Iceland and the Faeroes. If a natural migration of the codfish has taken place, then no amount of daft laws and draconian regulations will entice them to return. Maybe in another five hundred years they will come back, but by then, the fishing communities around the North Sea coasts, which are as old as the rocks and shores on which they are built, will have disappeared into the sands of time, destroyed by desk jockeys and politicians in their remote ivory towers.

However, just as fast as EU fish stocks are collapsing, migrating or being savagely cut by bureaucratic regulations, consumer demand for fish within Europe is rising. We are now only 60% self-sufficient in meeting this demand. Consumers are turning away from red meats because of fears about BSE, foot and mouth and other recent scare stories, and turning to fish as a healthy alternative. To meet this surging demand, the EU has two alternatives. Either it can import fish from outside the community, increasing our balance of trade deficit and exporting valuable fishing jobs, or we can harness the expertise of Spain's distant water fleet, thus maintaining EU employment in the fisheries sector while, at the same time, ensuring EU hygiene and food safety standards are maintained. The choice was not difficult.

Nevertheless, while contracts entered into with third countries have seen EU trawlers from Spain, Portugal, France, Ireland and to a lesser extent Greece and the UK, deployed around the globe from the great Southern Oceans to the North Pole, there has been rising concern at the exploitative nature of some of these agreements. In Mauritania, off the West Coast of Africa, it was claimed that Spanish trawlers were hoovering up thousands of tonnes of fish, depleting local stocks, driving native fishermen out of work and causing famine amongst the coastal communities. One television documentary even alleged that local fishermen in their tiny wooden dugout canoes were being run down and drowned by the giant foreign fishing vessels. It was also often said that the EU money used for these contracts was finding its' way into the hands of ruthless dictators and despots and was rarely used for the benefit of the impoverished communities whose fish was being taken.

There must have been some truth in these allegations. Such stories have surfaced too often, in too many countries, to have no factual basis. Reform was necessary and overdue. Siren voices called for the EU to abandon any further fisheries agreements with third countries. However, this would be a foolish option, opening the door to private deals between developing nations desperate for cash and multi-national Klondikers from Russia, Korea and Japan, desperate for fish and oblivious to the needs of the local communities, or to calls for conservation. Clearly the EU had to maintain its international commitments, but in a sustainable fishery that enhanced development objectives and helped, rather than threatened, indigenous populations. The new agreement between the EU and Senegal is a model for such reform.

The previous agreement with Senegal ended on 31st December 2001 with allegations from the Senegalese of EU over-fishing and environmental damage. Such was their depth of fury that the Government of Senegal barred EU vessels from its waters for 6 months. Negotiations resumed between the European Commission and the Senegalese authorities and eventually a new 4-year agreement was drawn up which raised the annual payments from 12 million Euros to 16 million. But more importantly, the agreement actually resulted in fewer fish being caught.

EU officials agreed that demersal (whitefish) catches would be reduced from 10,000 to 8,000 tonnes per year, while environmentally damaging pelagic fishing (oily fish like sardines and mackerel) involving pairs of giant trawlers dragging enormous nets between them, was banned altogether. In addition, the EU agreed that more tuna would be landed in Dakar to help the local fish processing industry and that the number of local Senegalese fishermen employed on the EU trawlers would increase from 33% to 50%

However, the most important development in this new protocol has been the partnership created between the EU and Senegal to conserve and develop their fishery. To this end the agreement, which provides fishing opportunities for 78 EU tuna vessels and up to 8000 gross tonnes of trawlers and longliners, envisages a continuous monitoring of the fish stocks with an annual scientific assessment when scientists will make recommendations to a joint partnership conference on the state of stocks and on biological rest periods, reduced fishing zones and larger mesh sizes. To ensure that a sustainable fishery is maintained, the EU has insisted that while 64% of the annual contract payment will be devoted to buying fishing rights, the remaining 36% will be devoted to conservation and development objectives, with monitoring and surveillance high on the list. The outcome should lead to a revival of the Senegalese fishery, with increased local jobs, improved safety for local small-scale fishing vessels and an injection of much-needed foreign investment and cash into the ailing Senegal economy. 600,000 people in Senegal rely on fishing for their primary or secondary jobs. The EU has recognised its responsibility to these people while, at the same time, maintaining its long tradition of distant water fishing to keep a steady supply of good, healthy fish on Europe's tables.

There are many people who argue that the European Union should pull out of the International Fishing Agreement. They say we are merely exporting our problems to developing nations around the globe. However the Senegal protocol proves that responsible, sustainable fishing is possible while maintaining a high level of conservation and developing output. This surely must be the model for future International Fishing Agreement rather than opening the door to a fishing free for all.

PRESIDENT BLAIR

The Constitutional Convention, under the chairmanship of former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, has just published its preliminary draft of a “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.” The constitution has already sent shivers down the spine of many Eurosceptics who see the proposals as pushing Europe towards the creation of a Federal Superstate.

The final recommendations from this shadowy organisation will emerge in June, but already some sinister developments have become apparent. The Convention has been asked to pave the way for radical reform of the EU institutions prior to the enlargement of the EU, which will take effect following the elections to the European Parliament in June 2004. On that historic day, ten new countries will join the community, expanding the EU population from its current 350 million to 500 million. While reform of the creaking and dilapidated institutions which run this massive operation is long overdue, many British citizens will bewail the loss of yet more sovereignty to what is fast becoming the United States of Europe.

One of the suggestions contained within the draft Constitution has certainly started tongues wagging in Brussels and Strasbourg and led to some interesting speculation in the press. Article 15 of the Constitution recommends the creation of a new post of President of the European Council. At present, the Council of Ministers has a rotating presidency, which shifts from country to country each six months. However, Giscard d’Estaing’s Convention would like the Prime Ministers of the 25 Member States to elect a President of Europe who would hold office for 5 years.

Such a person would be no mere figurehead. The President of the United States of Europe would be immensely powerful, standing shoulder to shoulder with George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. The Constitution skirts around the question of whether or not the new EU President would have a Cabinet. But it seems unlikely that such a President would be expected to consult with 25 heads of national governments before being able to act, so a Cabinet of powerful EU ministers would be a virtual certainty. Perhaps that is why Lord Robertson has just announced his retirement at the end of 2003 from the post of NATO Secretary General. Maybe he has his eye on the likely new job of EU Foreign Secretary!

But who are the contenders for the lofty new post of EU President? Well this is where the EU rumour mill springs into overdrive. The three key names being mentioned are José María Aznar, the Prime Minister of Spain, Martti Ahtisaari, the former Prime Minister of Finland and, surprise, surprise, none other than our very own Prime Minister, Tony Blair! Although highly regarded as a candidate from one of the EU’s ‘small’ countries, Mr Ahtisaari can be ruled out as a serious contender. The big powers such as Britain, France, Germany and Spain will be the king-makers in this case and that narrows the field to a contest between Blair and Aznar.

Now Tony Blair’s chances would have been greatly enhanced had he delivered the UK into the Eurozone following a successful referendum. However, recent opinion polls amongst business leaders point to growing antagonism towards the Euro and continuing support for the pound. Mr Blair’s spin doctors have also probably warned him that a resentful British public would love to give him a bloody nose in a referendum, although it would be based on issues more to do with failing health, education and transport policies than with the Euro. There is also growing opposition to Blair’s blind faith in supporting the war mongering tendencies of George W. Bush. Certainly Iraq may be the make or break issue for Tony Blair. A quick, clean war with few civilian or military casualties would see Blair emerge as the victor – the leader who was right to support Bush. However, a protracted, bloody conflict with hundreds of casualties, burning oil fields and the western economies in free fall, would leave Blair isolated and exposed.

So for once in his career, Tony Blair is taking a huge risk. But, the glittering prize, in his reckoning, makes it all worthwhile. Only one remaining obstacle could stand in his way - José María Aznar – but it seems as if Tony may have found a way to win his support. For those who have wondered for some time why Mr Blair, the New Labour evangelist, seems so cosy in the company of Mr Aznar, the Spanish Conservative, then they need look no further. And for those who would suggest that perhaps Gibraltar and the UK fishing industry have been offered to Mr Aznar in exchange for his support for the Blair Presidency.......well, I couldn’t possibly comment!

Struan Stevenson MEP

Struan Stevenson is a Conservative MEP for Scotland and President of the Fisheries Committee in the European Parliament.