It appears a heated discussion between the European Parliament and the European Commission on co-decision procedures may result in the Commission withdrawing the proposed management plans for horse mackerel and anchovy.
In recent discussions between the European Commission and the European Parliament, the proposed long-term management plans for anchovy and horse mackerel seems to have turned into a battle-ground. The debate is focused on whether long-term management plans constitute a decision on fishing opportunities (usually set in Total Allowable Catches (TACs), quotas or effort limitations) – an area that is exempt from the new co-decision procedure under the Lisbon Treaty – or whether they should be handled as other legislation, in which case the Fisheries Council will have to await a European Parliament opinion.
Co-decision is estimated to greatly prolong the time from proposal to decision – it may take two years to reach agreement, though it is possible to speed this up when proposals have everyone’s support. The Commission view is rumoured to be that management plans should stay with the Council, as co-decision will make any changes to the plans arduous and time-consuming.
Another alternative is to set up comitology procedures that give the Commission greater control over the more technical and detailed aspects of management through Commission Regulations, though this process is less transparent than the current one. Such a solution was proposed in the Technical measures proposal that was rejected by the Council in November last year.
In the proposal, the power to take decisions and make amendments and derogations on technical matters was to be conferred from the Council to the Commission. In taking decisions, the Commission would be assisted by a management committee, consisting of representatives from MS. The committee would be chaired by the Commission and provide a forum for discussion, enabling a dialogue with national administrations before implementing measures. In such a procedure, the Commission must submit a draft of the measure to the committee, on which it must deliver its opinion within the time-limit set by the Chair. The opinion is taken by qualified majority vote. If the Commission decides to adopt a measure which is not in accordance with the Committee’s opinion, the Commission must refer it to the Council, which may take a different decision by qualified majority.
Adopting a new decision-making approach for the regulation of technical measures and other detailed rules will be essential to keep the CFP workable. Deciding on measures of such a technical nature at the highest political level is both unpractical and inappropriate, due to time constraints and other limitations.
At the moment, it seems the Commission may withdraw its current proposals, possibly to simplify them and await new comitology procedures. This is likely to reduce the contents of the new plans to more overarching targets and principles.
In the context of CFP reform, many stakeholders (including the Fisheries Secretariat and WWF) would like to see the technical implementation of objectives and principles agreed on the highest political level take place at the regional or even local level. Ideally, many of these measures should be part of comprehensive, ecosystem-based Long-term Management Plans achieved through open and transparent discussions with affected stakeholders – a process quite different from what seems to be happening now.