EU: Commissioner Damanaki on the new EU's fisheries fund

Ms Damanaki European Commissioner, in charge of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, lifted a corner of the veil on the Commission's proposal for a future EU's fisheries fund. This happened during a hearing at the UK's Parliament House of Commons Select Committee on Envrionment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Here is the link to the UK's Parliament website with the video of the hearing. The discussion on the new fisheries fund takes place at the end of the hearing (from 12h22 on):

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9264

NZ: interesting presentation by governement official on WTO negotiations

Here is the link to a presentation by a New Zealand's governement official on the WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

http://www.seafoodindustry.co.nz/f1690,84125/84125_Haike_Manning_WTO_Fisheries_Subsidies.pdf

EU: WWF and its allies call for real reform of the EU's Fisheries Policy (also of subsidies?)

Just before the start of the European Seafood Exhibition in Brussels the WWF posted on its website a leaflet on the above subject with as head title "A shared vision for sustainable European fisheries"

I went through it and to my great surprise I did not find the "s" word, i.e. subsidy, subsidies, (financial) support. So, this piece of policy (not negligible) does not appear in this document. You could read such absence in different ways. One could be: subsidies must go, they should disappear, so do not mentioned them. The other way of reading the document would be: do not touch subsidies, keep them as they are (or at least at the same level). Another way of looking at it would suggest that, as subsidies are such a contentious issue, it is better not to address them. 

  

I found also interesting the sentence that reads as follows:

"This reform should seek to maximise the economic benefits for society through the sustainable management of these vital and renewable resources for future food security."

 This sounds like agriculture. Would this mean that the EU has to ensure that it can be self sufficient in its supply of fish products, for food security purposes?

At any rate, the EU subsidses the production of the leaflet! Should we call this a virtuous (or good, or green) fisheries subsidy? I leave the answer to the readers of this blog.

Here are a few links on this document:

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/policy/wwf_europe_environment/initiatives/fisheries/fisheries_policy/wwf_industry_alliance_cfp/

http://www.wwf.eu/fisheries/cfp_reform/?194279/WWF-and-its-Allies-call-for-real-reform-in-European-Fisheries

BLOG: blog on fisheries and aquculture (in French)

For those who understand this beatiful language: here is a very comprehensive and informative blog on fisheries and aquaculture with emphasis on French and EU issues.

I am adding it to my list of favorites blogs.

http://aquaculture-aquablog.blogspot.com/

ICELAND: Parliament gives green light for EU application

In early afternoon of 16 July 2009 the Althingi, allegedly the world’s oldest parliament, voted in favour of Iceland’s submitting and application for membership to the EU.

The day after the vote, 17 July 2009, the formal application was handed over by the Icelandic Ambassador to Sweden, as this country holds now the rotating Presidency of the EU.

According to the different sources, Iceland could become a full member in 2011 or 2012, depending on the speed of the accession talks.

Will the WTO Doha negotiations, including on fisheries subsidies, be completed before Iceland’s accession to the EU?

ICELAND: EU Membership? Leaving the "Friends of Fish" group at the WTO negotiations?

The economic crisis in Iceland has left deep wounds. So deep that the government is going ahead with the parliamentary process to submit Iceland's application to the EU.

On 9 July 2009 the Foreign Affairs agreed recommending Iceland's assembly (the Althingi) to apply for EU membership.

The debate in plenary is, at the time of writing this post, still ongoing.

Is this the end of Iceland as one of the champions of the "Friends of Fish" (group of countries that would like to have the broadest possible ban on fisheries subsides at the WTO)?

Here is a link to a press article on Iceland's EU membership application.

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/95365.php

GREENLAND: USD 93 million bailout for "Royal Greenland"

Royal Greenland, a company employing more than two thousand people and fully owned by Greenlands Home Rule Governement has received a bailout package of DKK (Danish Kroner) 500 million (USD 93 million).

The new government in Greenland has injected DKK 250 million (USD 46.5 million) in equity and granted a soft loan for a similar amount to the ailing, 100% publicly owned company. Royal Greenland is a large producer of shrimps.

It seems that the Home Rule Parliament agreed with the package on Sunday 28 June 2009.

An interesting feature of Greenland is that Denmark represents this territory in many international fora. With regard to the WTO, it appears that a Greenlandic Delegation joins the Danish Delegation at Ministerial meetings.

It is also worth noting that Greenland has a fisheries agreement with the EU. I copy here an extract from the information available at the EU website on this agreement:

"The Fisheries Partnership Agreement concluded between the Community and Greenland covers the period 1.1.2007 – 31.12.2012 with a financial contribution [annually] of 15 847 244 € including a financial reserve of 1 540 000 € for additional capelin and/or cod quotas and 3 261 449 € for defining and implementing a sectoral fisheries policy in Greenland.

This fisheries agreement allows Community vessels mainly from Germany, Denmark, UK, Spain, Portugal to fish in Greenland waters and is the only FPA concluded with a non-ACP States."

Here is a link to an article on the Royal Greenland bailout:

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/46021-on-the-path-to-self-rule.html

And here a link to the EU's website with details about the EU-Greenland fisheries agreement:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/external_relations/bilateral_agreements/greenland_en.htm

EU: transparency and fisheries subsidies

A few days ago the website http://www.fishsubsidy.org/ was launched. This website, funded by the U.S. based non-profit organisation "The Pew Charitable Trust", has the aim "to obtain detailed data relating to payments and recipients of payments under the EU's common fisheries policy and make this data available in a way that is useful to European citizens." (see FAQs in http://www.fishsubsidy.org/).

From a practical perspective, the website allows the user to make queries on, for example, the amounts of money paid to the different EU countries from 1994 to 2006, with the possibility to know the beak-down, even at vessel level.

According to fishsubsidy.org the information comes from "the European Commission, which compiled it from data submitted by EU national governments that actually administer the common fisheries policy"(see FAQs in http://www.fishsubsidy.org/).

In an article published on June 30, 2009 in the Irish Examiner, Ann Cahill, the Brussels correspondent, notes that:

"Some of the information on the new website does not make sense however. According to the results for Ireland, Sligo is the biggest recipient of subsidies while a boat fishing out of Sligo is the top Irish beneficiary. Killybegs, on the other hand, one of the countries biggest ports, is not mentioned at all. Meantime the boat that got the second biggest subsidy is Irish registered but fishes out of a German port.

The problem goes back to the member state where they fill in the information with no standardisation of the type of information either nationally or EU-wide, making it very difficult to get a clear picture. So Sligo is mentioned because it is one of the places in the country where boats can be registered. And Killybegs is hidden in the northwest region category. So far nobody can explain the German connection. The name of those who own the vessels receiving half the EU subsidies is missing too, as only the boat’s name is given. In Ireland the Mark Amay was the top recipient getting over €1 million."

Here is the link to the article in the Irish Examiner

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/snojkfojoj/rss2/#ixzz0JoF4UxSI&C

Concerning these anomalies www.fishsubsidy.org states that:

"The data presented on this website has been obtained from the European Commission. In several cases we have discovered discrepancies, inaccuracies and straightforward mistakes in the data released to us and wherever possible we have queried this and often obtained corrected data. Ultimately, the data available on this site is only as good as the data we have received from the Commission.

Despite the errors we have uncovered, we believe that the data is reasonably reliable. Among the most common errors are the following: misspellings and irregular spelling of place names; incorrect years (you may notice years as early as 1960 and as far into the future as 2264); incorrect recording of municipalities (in some cases the names of whole regions, e.g. Galicia, or entire countries, e.g. Italia, have been given as a municipality. We have corrected the most obvious mistakes that we have detected such as misspellings of place names but in general we have taken the decision to publish the data as it has been presented to us, mistakes and all. We believe doing so will encourage better record-keeping by the responsible authorities (see FAQs in http://www.fishsubsidy.org/)."

Personally I find this website a very interesting initiative. Actually I suggest that such websites should be set-up for each country that is providing subsidies to its fishing industry.

In this regard, my advice to those working in the project is that they rename the website as fishsubsidy-eu.org. In the same way they could launch similar websites, such as fishsubsidy-usa.org (USA), fishsusidy‑jp.org (Japan), fishsubsidy-br.org (Brazil), fishsubsidy-ca.org (Canada), fishsubsidy-in.org (India), fishsubsidy-no.org (Norway), etc.

I will come back on the subject of transparency and the WTO in a later post.

EU: Fisheries subsidies at the UK's House of Lords

Hereunder is a question put to the European Commission in the context of a report titled "The Progress of the Common Fisheries Policy" (22 July 2008) produced by the Committee on the European Union of the House of Lords.

9. What are your views on the possible impact on EU fisheries structural policy of WTO level discussions as regards subsidies in the fishing sector?

On 30 November 2007 the Chair of the WTO Negotiating Group on "Rules", Ambassador Valle (Uruguay), circulated a draft consolidated text to Members on the subjects covered by the "Rules" chapters, ie anti-dumping and countervailing measure and subsidies, including fisheries subsidies.

The Commission notes that a number of elements included in the aforementioned text reflect the two key principles guiding the EU's policies for aid to the fisheries sector, namely to prohibit subsidies that encourage overcapacity, leading to overfishing, while allowing subsidies that help to remove capacity in excess of available fish resources. These elements of the draft negotiating text are incorporated in the so called "red" (prohibited) and "green" (allowed) box types of subsidies.

Nevertheless the Commission is concerned that the proposals by the Chair, as they now stand, could prevent public authorities from granting support to the fishing sector to ensure the transition to a sustainable state. Examples of this are the case of aid programmes intended for a smooth and efficient restructuring of parts of the fishing industry. Furthermore the proposed exceptions ("green" box) seem insufficient to allow for the implementation of cleaner technologies, including the replacement of engines, in order to limit emissions harmful for the environment.

Besides the proposals to prohibit or to allow certain types of subsidies, the Chair's text includes certain provisions to reinforce the notification of subsidies. In this respect, the Commission would like to see a very ambitious result of the negotiations, one which would bring WTO Members at least to the same level of transparency as the one shown by the EU internally, when implementing structural funds, and externally, when notifying aid to the WTO. Increased transparency will not only generate knowledge about the types of subsidies given but will also provide a much needed insight into the impact of such subsidies both on trade and on the sustainable use of fishery resources.

In sum, the Commission's assessment is that the current negotiating proposals, as set out in the Chair's text, should be more balanced. In other words, the WTO should be given the tools to tackle the problem of overcapacity and overfishing while allowing for the provision of aid that positively contributes to the sustainable exploitation of available fishery resources and that mitigates the negative impacts of adjustment measures on fishing communities. This assessment is shared by other WTO Members in the developing world as well as developed countries.

More details on the positions of the European Union in the fisheries negotiations are available in the three submissions made to the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules on 23 April 2003 (WTO document TN/RL/W/82), on 11 April 2005 (WTO document TN/RL/W/178 and on 26 April 2006 (WTO document TN/RL/GEN/I34). These documents are public and can be downIoaded from the WTO's website.

Here is the link to the UK's Parliament where the above text can be found.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/146/8050708.htm

FRANCE : Public-aided crises in the French fishing sector

This is title of an article published by Benoît Mesnil, from IFREMER, in Volume 51 issue 10 of "Ocean & Coastal Management", a scientific journal published by ELSEVIER.

More information on the article and the journal can be found at:

http://ees.elsevier.com/ocma/