Adding fuel to the fire

Recent protests by fishermen all over Europe show the need to solve problems together at EU level, explains François Desrentes

As a result of rocketing fuel prices, feelings are running high in the fisheries sector. Although this is only a painful symptom of the difficulties the industry is going through, it is one of the most significant elements. However, the issue of fuel costs should not overshadow the other problems the fishing industry is facing, in particular the prices of fishery products, imports from third countries and the monitoring system.

Demonstrations in the French ports have spread to Spain, Italy and Portugal, and now action is being led at European level as illustrated by the protests in Brussels on 4 June. It comes as no surprise that this is turning into a European issue, since a common policy such as the CFP has to be addressed at EU level.

Owing to their competences in this area – sometimes formal, often indirect and shared – the maritime regions cannot simply look on as spectators. Since the beginning of this crisis they have been making their voice heard in their own countries. It is only logical and a matter of urgency that this voice now be raised on a European level. They have to this end a representative network with long-standing experience on the European scene: the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR).

For over 20 years now, a fisheries working group has been up and running within the CPMR. Its members include regional representatives responsible for this policy area from all the EU’s major sea basins. The activities led by this group of men and women working in direct contact with fishing communities are based on mutual exchange and dialogue. The working method is one of consensus and a desire to reach joint positions to express the concerns, expectations and difficulties of the fishing industry and communities alike. We believe that all this can be used to good effect in the light of the current crisis.

How can we not be struck by the lack of trust that has grown between professionals and their representatives, between the fishing industry and the public administrations in charge of this area? Can this loss of confidence be put down solely to the inability to meet financial demands? It is interesting to note that the same concern comes up time and again at conferences and seminars on fisheries – that of “giving the sector a positive image”. This is one dimension of the question that cannot be ignored.

Similarly, we cannot overlook the context of uncertainty into which the European economy has been thrown and which is particularly manifest in the most vulnerable sectors. It is true that all sectors of the economy have no choice but to adapt to globalisation. It is also true that this adaptation requires time and guidance on the part of public authorities for whom this is one of the major tasks.

Has this reflection been led so far with a view to reaching a solution? This perhaps remains to be seen. Certainly all the instruments presently available have been reviewed, from the European globalisation adjustment fund through to mechanisms governing state aid, only to note each time that the criteria governing these instruments prevent them from being used to cope with the current crisis in the fishing industry. Might we not have a more flexible interpretation of the current measures? Might we ask ourselves whether the criteria used at present are in touch with the current context and whether they ought not to be modified? The same goes for the European globalisation adjustment fund. The criterion for allocating this fund – eligibility for firms with over 1000 employees – is clearly not adapted to the fishing industry.

Finally, we must realise that the current crisis is much more than just a crisis within the industry, but that it is above all a social crisis in that the human consequences are potentially great. To the reply that consists in saying that the EU does not have competences in the ‘social’ field, we might retort that in that case, member states should be given the capacity to use the means at their disposal and the instruments made available to them in a more flexible way.

The maritime regions are in direct contact with fishing communities and their representatives. They are able to play a constructive role in the dialogue and serve as an interface between different levels of governance. This is the CPMR’s vocation and it proposes to act in such a way.