Governance in the European Union: Policies

Résumé du document

The Common Fisheries Policy is one of the oldest policies entirely delegated to the European Community since it is part of the Common agricultural policy. Indeed, in the Treaty of Rome, agricultural products are defined as “the products of the soil, of stock-farming and of fisheries” (Art. 32 TEC). As a result, the fisheries policy has to follow the same objectives as the CAP, i.e. to increase productivity, to ensure a fair standard of living, to stabilise markets, to assure the availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices (Art. 33 TEC). However, if these objectives could be reached in agriculture through the creation of a common organisation of markets, in fisheries this would not have been enough. This is due to a certain specificity of the sector: it is based on common and mobile resources. It is obvious that certain species overlap territorial seas' limits and this biological fact explains why a supranational management of fisheries was needed, different from agriculture, and not only regulating a market but also the conditions of production . It is only in 1983 that a complete Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is launched…and immediately some controversies appeared.

Extraits

[...] According to Mickaël Shackelton (Chaigneau, 2003: 223), the French government wanted to use the European Community to protect its fishermen from the impact of single market's pressures. Thus the European Commission serves here as a neutral institution in charge of controlling the commitment of member states and permits them to be sure that the decisions will be followed by all (end of a “beggar your neighbour” philosophy). The fact that the pro-environmental fixing of quotas and TACs by the Commission is modified by the member states proves that the EC does not have an influential role in the policymaking. [...]

[...] Unfortunately the text was not accessible on Eur-Lex, only the bibliographic notice. However, the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulations No 894/97, No 812/2004 and No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (COM(2006)0511) gives a summary of the former Parliament opinion. [12]Dive International Publishing Ltd, Time to Stop the Carnage, http://www.ukdiving.co.uk/conservation/articles/time_stop_carnage.htm (October 2007) As underlined by Oceana Italian French and 30 British and Irish vessels were using the drift-net methods. In: http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/europe/reports/the_use_of_dr iftnets-eng.pdf (October 2007) SOS Grand Bleu, Lutte contre les filets dérivants, http://www.sosgrandbleu.asso.fr/agir/filets/filets1.htm (October 2007) WWF-UK, Driftnet ban, http://www.wwf.org.uk/anniversary/index2.asp (October 2007) The ''friends of fish'' countries are the most northern ones: Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands . [...]

[...] The following part of the paper will show how NGOs have been able to influence the policy formulation process on that issue III. The implication of environmental non-governmental organisations: a new form of decision-making? In June 1998 the Council passed a regulation (No. 1239/98) banning the use of drift-nets in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. As Todd and Ritchie (2000) pointed out, it was first time that a decision to ban a fishing technique had been taken” (142). Multiple factors can explain why this regulation came on the Commission table in 1994, year of publication of the proposal. [...]

[...] The CFP reform in 1992 underlined the environmental consequences of the fisheries activities and the need to take it into account in any fisheries regulation. Also in 1992, a limit of 2.5 km for the drift-nets was set by the EU, but it allowed certain countries to use longer ones until 1993 (Council Regulation No. 345/92). Along with those regulatory elements, the environmental NGOs (ENGOs) played an important role in that they raised public awareness of the situation. Indeed, ENGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF and SOS Grand Bleu have been protested for years against those nets because they catch non-target species, such as dolphins, sea birds and turtles. [...]

[...] Unfortunately it is not that simple. To understand the system, we will use the example of the annual fixing of quotas and TACs. Each December of each year the Fisheries Council of ministers gather to fix the level of TACs and quotas and this is, for many Member states, a real challenge. As underlined in a French newspaper, those councils are “marathon meetings”[2]. Before going to the political stage, the setting of TACs and quotas follows a more technical stage. [...]