EMFF vote a reality check

Last week, the European Parliament voted to adopt a budget of EUR 6.5 billion for the next six years for the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF), giving the revamped common fisheries policy (CFP) the cash it needs to really take effect.

Officially, the parliament voted to adopt the new CFP last fall, making the 16 April vote a formality, but it does signal that the parliament is willing to put its money where its collective mouth is, supporting the policy that the European Commission will use to set rules and regulations for Europe’s collective fishing industry.

The balance between the needs of commercial fishing and the responsibility to protect the environment has always been a delicate one, and while the debate over the CFP was ultimately productive, it points out once again how difficult it is to maintain that balance.

With emotions on both sides running at the usual hysterical levels, it is predictable that no one will be altogether happy with the new CFP. It’s designed with that delicate balance in mind; the environmental activists think the new rules don’t go far enough to protect already fragile fish stocks, while commercial fishing activists insist that the new rules will strangle an industry already hampered by a sluggish economy.

As usual with such polarizing topics, both sides are right — and wrong. Despite new bycatch rules and a commitment to recovering endangered fish stocks by 2020, one NGO couldn’t resist a dig at the new CFP for allowances for funding for new fishing vessel engines, and regulations allowing vessels to stay idle in port.

Industry pundits’ reactions to the new CFP were equally predictable, with some arguing that funding for upgraded engines and a decentralization of power — meaning Brussels doesn’t get to boss local fisheries around as much — doesn’t make up for excessive new regulations that will have little long-term effect on stocks, but will bury small fisheries in too much red tape for them to eke out a living. It rings with that tired tone of “Why can’t they just leave us alone until they want to give us money at the docks and fish counters?” It’s just as tiresome as the sky-is-falling histrionics from the NGOs.

If fisheries are left unchecked, the possibility will always remain that no matter how well-meaning the fishermen are, they could be hastening the demise of their own industry without even knowing it. While new rules like the revamped CFP will probably have some adverse effect on smaller fisheries in particular, the idea that new regulations are going to force every fisherman in Europe to pull up nets overnight is silly. At the same time, NGOs need to understand that the sky isn’t always falling yet regulations borne out of the hysteria can sometimes do more harm than good to our economy, our livelihoods and the ability to feed the world. It will take a lot more than a few new engines to wipe out Europe’s fish stocks.

The struggle to acknowledge this reality that the environment and the economy can and must be balanced lies somewhere in between where both sides think it lies, is not germane to the European Union’s debate over the CFP. Arguments over the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the United States, disputes over the usefulness of third-party sustainability assessment programs and long-term funding projects like the one being managed by the Global Partnership for Oceans can all benefit from a similarly level-headed, balanced approach.

The latter project is now being shaped by guidelines created by a panel split evenly down the middle between activists/academics and economists/corporate leaders, which is an encouraging start.

Europe’s CFP did take into account the needs of both sides of the issue, but until the people on both sides of the issue start listening to each other, we’re doomed to see development and amendment of future fisheries-related rules and policies mired by single-minded groups that can’t see the reality somewhere in the middle.