Website lays €1bn EU fishing subsidies bare

FISH is one of the policies the EU has operated communally for decades. But for the first time people can see exactly where the €1 billion in annual subsidies is going.

A website launched a few days ago shows how much countries, boats and ports got over the last funding period, from 1994 to 2006.

The information has always been available from the European Commission but now the data is on an easily understandable and searchable web site, www.fishsubsidy.org

It revealed one major piece of information – the same amount of money goes on scrapping vessels as on subsidising new boats, proving what many have been saying about the communal fish policy – that it is making a bad situation worse.

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. There is no information as to who owns it, what it fishes or whether it has a record of breaking the law.

Luckily governments are being forced to give this information for the new funding period that began in 2007, and the details will be available shortly.

For the first time we should discover who got the money. Similar information on who benefits from agriculture subsidies showed that it was mainly big business.

Something similar is expected from the information on fish subsidies. A certain amount goes to help poor fishermen and to keeping coastal communities alive, but a sizeable chunk goes to big business. International companies and investment and sovereign funds have invested in multi-million euro vessels guaranteed to give a quick return on their money.

Hopefully this will lead people to ask just whose interests our governments are protecting as they insist on pillaging the seas and colluding in the extinction of whole species of fish.

But the ability of politicians to speak out of both sides of their mouths should not be underestimated. Just last week environmental ministers agreed that all policies must be tested to ensure they do not contribute to the widespread destruction of nature currently under way.

Birdlife International described this as “wishful thinking”. “The political reality is that governments are following their business as usual approach which is bit by bit dismantling the web of life on our planet,” they said.

The current reform of the common fisheries policy will be one good test of whether governments are serious about the future, or are firmly fixed on nothing more than their seat in the next election.