May 2002

SPANISH PRACTICES

The crisis in the EU fisheries sector grows apace! Following extensive leakage of the European Commission's proposed legislative reforms to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which should have been published in early April, it was recently announced that the package of reforms would not now be released until May 29th. It quickly became apparent that this delay had been caused by the intervention of Spain who are opposed to the reforms on several fronts. It seems that Prime Minister Aznar of Spain telephoned Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, to object to certain aspects of the proposals and to demand that the matter be delayed to allow further internal discussion in the Commission.

Next, the Spanish Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, wrote an extraordinary letter to Commissioner Fischler, Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, objecting to the reform package and, in particular, to plans to switch public aid from modernisation and new build of fishing vessels to decommissioning, which, she claimed, would severely disadvantage Spain. In addition, de Palacio stated that Spain and Portugal were expecting open access to all EU waters following 31st. December 2002. This latter point was a clear reference to Spanish & Portuguese opposition to the continuation of 6 and 12 mile limits and to the access restrictions which prevent them from fishing in the North Sea. Treaty derogations which set up the 6 & 12 mile limits to protect our inshore fisheries are due to expire on 31st. December this year and unless new regulations are in place under the CFP reforms, there will be a free-for-all, with anyone holding quota able to fish right up to our shorelines.

Meanwhile on Spanish TV, the Spanish Fisheries Minister Arias Cañete stated that he had "instructed the Spanish Commissioners" to oppose the CFP reforms. This, of course, caused an immediate furore as Commissioners are supposed to be wholly independent and are required to take an oath on taking office that they will show no favour or bias to their own Member State. Mr Cañete quickly apologised and agreed that he had been mistaken in saying such a thing on TV. His apology was soon followed by a statement from Commissioner de Palacio denying that she had received instructions from the Spanish Government and claiming that she was simply expressing her own personal concerns about the proposed reforms.

The waters grew murkier still with the news that Steffen Smidt, Director General of Fisheries in the European Commission had been suddenly sacked from his job. A flurry of denials were immediately issued by the Commission claiming there was no connection with the CFP reform crisis and that Mr Smidt's removal from office was simply part of a departmental re-structuring involving 20 other heads of department. However, it soon became apparent that the 20 other heads of department had been informed about their re-postings over two months ago, while Mr Smidt was given only 24 hours' notice. Suspicions began to grow that the Spanish, who had fought a war of attrition against the Director General since his appointment two years ago, had demanded Mr Smidt's head on a plate.

So now the man responsible for the CFP reform had been removed from his job within hours of Mr Aznar's telephone call to Romano Prodi and within days of Mrs de Palacio's letter to Franz Fischler. A distinct smell of stinking fish began to permeate the EU institutions! As the scandal continued to grow, I decided to convene a special meeting of the Political Co-ordinators from the Fisheries Committee on 8th. May in Brussels. This was vehemently opposed by the Spanish who claimed that I was exceeding my powers as Chairman of the Fisheries Committee and that it was unconstitutional to call such a meeting at short notice and without the presence of interpreters. Nevertheless I pressed ahead and obtained an agreement from the Co-ordinators that we should hold a special 2 hour 'in camera' hearing in the fisheries committee on 23rd. May, to which Commissioner Fischler has been invited.

It was felt that to hold such a hearing in public would lead to the participants simply voicing their party political positions and would act as a constraint on what the Commissioner might be able to say. Following this hearing and based on the evidence heard, the committee may wish to pass the whole matter to the Presidency of the Parliament with a request that they hold an independent inquiry. Alternatively, they may wish to invite Commissioner De Palacio to attend the fisheries committee to explain the issues raised in her letter to Fischler. Whatever we decide, it is vital that we do nothing to delay further the timetable for reforming the CFP. To do so would simply play into the hands of the Spanish, who wish to delay implementation of the reforms beyond 31st. December for their own benefit. By driving the reform out of the Danish Presidency into the Greek Presidency of the EU in the first half of 2003, the Spanish hope that open access to all EU waters right up to our shorelines will be achieved and that such a free-for-all would be very difficult to roll back with any subsequent legislation. In such circumstances, I am determined that any investigations or inquiries instituted by the parliament should run in parallel with the debate on the CFP reform proposals and should not create obstacles to implementation of the timetable during the Danish EU Presidency.

The CFP currently costs EU taxpayers over one billion Euros a year. Spain benefits from a staggering 52% of this funding while the next biggest benefactor - Italy - only receives 8%. Britain, with the third largest fleet in Europe after Spain and Italy only receives a paltry 4.8%, despite the fact that British taxpayers are amongst the leading contributors to the EU budget. With fish stocks throughout the EU on the point of collapse and the CFP driving the industry to the verge of disaster, the time for radical reform is long overdue. The Commission say that there is a need for a drastic 40% cut in the overall size of the EU fishing fleet. There are simply too many fishermen chasing too few fish.

However, the Spanish wish to continue spending public funds on building new fishing boats and modernising existing ones rather than scrapping vessels to help reduce overall fleet capacity. They are equally determined to gain access to the North Sea and to fish right up to the shorelines of every Member State. This short-term pursuit of profits at the expense of conservation will destroy the industry and ensure that there will be no fishery sector for future generations to enjoy. They must not be allowed to achieve their objectives. Spain is a part of the EU. They must start behaving as a partner rather than a bullying aggressor. The CFP must be reformed to ensure a sustainable future for European fisheries and any attempts to derail these reforms will be strenuously opposed.

SEALING THEIR FATE

If Scottish fishermen think they have a problem with the ever-expanding seal population they should pay a visit to Canada. Although Scotland's population of grey seals has expanded dramatically in recent years and now numbers over 125,000 and continues to grow at the rate of 5% per year, in Newfoundland and Labrador, the population of harp and hooded seals now numbers over 6 million! While fishermen on Canada's Atlantic coast are quick to point out that the seals were not solely to blame for the collapse of cod and groundfish stocks off the Grand Banks and that over-fishing was the main culprit, they are equally adamant that the growing seal population is a major factor preventing the cod from returning. It is estimated that around 5 million tonnes of fish are eaten annually by the Canadian seal population. Over 1 million tonnes of capelin (a plankton eating fish) is included in this estimate and capelin is a mainstay in the cod's diet. In addition, seals devour around 250,000 tonnes of Arctic Cod each year, virtually ensuring that the stocks are given no chance to recover.

However, Canadian fishermen are fighting back. Although the centuries-old Canadian sealing industry was virtually destroyed in the 1970's, due to vehement opposition from animal welfare groups and a collapse in the fur-trade, there has been a steady revival in the market for seal products. This year, sealers in Newfoundland and Labrador have had their most successful harvest ever. The Canadian Government gave them permission to kill 275,000 seals, subject to strict regulations and controls, and conditions on the ice-bound seas have proved ideal for the task. This year it is reckoned that the Canadian seal harvest will net a total of $20 million dollars for the 6000 sealers involved!

The Department of Fisheries & Oceans keeps a very strict control over the seal industry. They are keen, wherever possible, to avoid confrontation with the animal welfare lobby. They have therefore outlawed the killing of harp seal pups (whitecoats) and hooded seal pups (bluebacks). Similarly, adult harp and hodded seals cannot be harvested when they are in whelping patches or breeding grounds. In addition, veterinarians advising the Canadian Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing insisted that seals should be humanely killed by professional licensed sealers who have undertaken two years practical training. Most seals are now shot on the ice with high powered rifles wileded by sealers operating from the bow of small boats.

Sealing has been part of the heritage and culture of Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen for centuries. It is a traditional way of life. In many small fishing communities, ice-bound for 8 months every year, when the sealers "went to the ice" they provided families with their first taste of fresh meat for weeks, if not months. Sealing income provided the necessities for the family and, importantly, gave sealers much needed resources to use in preparing for the fishery which would follow the ice thaw. It’s a dangerous industry. There have been many instances of sealers lost on the ice, sealers drowned, vessels crushed in the ice and indeed just last week off St John's in Newfoundland, two young sealers died of carbon monoxide poisoning as they rested in their boat while out sealing.

Nevertheless the industry has seen a remarkable revival and has pumped some much-needed revenue into the cash-strapped fishing communities on Canada's Eastern seaboard. Seal pelts which were selling for only $13 four years ago, are now commanding prices in excess of $100. Norwegian buyers are in a fierce bidding war with their Canadian counterparts at every seal fur auction. But in addition, the sealers have a policy of total utilisation of the seal. Nothing is wasted. The pelts are used for fur and for seal leather products such as hand-bags, belts and briefcases. Seal meat, which is very rich in iron and low in fat, is sold for human and animal consumption. Waste products are utilised in the fish processing sector for fishmeal, while a burgeoning trade in seal oil for cosmetic creams and even health supplements has developed.

Seal oil is rich in omega three and, having been approved for sale by Health Canada, is now widely available in capsule form in health food shops. Over 25 different brands are being marketed in Canada. It is claimed that regular use of seal oil capsules has helped people with cardiovascular problems, diabetes, arthritis, colitis and skin problems. Rather more controversially, a market has developed in seal penises, which are popular as aphrodisiacs in China and the Far East. Many men in these countries believe that eating a seal penis will turn them into sexual athletes and the price of this commodity rose to a spectacular $180 a few years ago. However, an increased supply has recently seen a slump in the seal penis trade, with prices this year as low as $8.

However, despite the controls and regulations, the protesters are still voicing their anger. Only last week, the daily Globe & Mail newspaper in Canada carried a lengthy article entitled "Ashamed to be a Canadian", in which the author attacked the seal industry as "a giant welfare cheque, written in blood." She claimed that the annual seal hunt is a simply a welfare scheme supported by ruthless politicians from Newfoundland and Labrador, cynically geared to winning the votes of the fishing communities at the taxpayers' expense. She argued that although the annual cull is huge, the economics are marginal at best and is "propped up by a web of government subsidies."

So the fight goes on, but Scotland's beleaguered fishermen may like to cast an eye over the way Canada deals with one of the many issues which have a bearing on the conservation of precious fish stocks around the waters of Scotland.

Struan Stevenson MEP is President of the Fisheries Committee in the European Parliament. He has recently returned from leading an official delegation from the committee on a visit to Newfoundland and Labrador at the invitation of the Canadian Federal Government.