There is an issue here at ICCAT that is rarely mentioned on the floor of the formal discussions and yet dominates the economics – and therefore the politics – of the bluefin tuna discussions. It offers interesting insights into the rivalries and power struggles among the European institutions.

It is known in the jargon as the French payback and has caused headaches for the EU for weeks.

In 2005 and 2006, the EU exceeded its quota for bluefin. Under both ICCAT procedures and EU law, the EU should have had its quota for bluefin in the following year reduced by the amount of over-fishing. But the EU argued so eloquently about the harm that this would cause to the industry that ICCAT forgave the over-fishing and the EU did not have its quota reduced.

The EU was so grateful for this understanding on the part of ICCAT that in 2007, it again over-fished, this time by a massive 5,021 tonnes – the French fleets fished over twice their national quota. There is a limit to how often the EU can twist arms, though, so in 2008 ICCAT insisted on a partial payback spread over four years (most of this comes from the French allocation). Thus the EU has had its quotas for 2009 and 2010 reduced by 500 tonnes each year. The payback plan calls for much larger quota reductions for each of 2011 and 2012 – 1,510 tonnes. Note that once again the EU negotiated well, so the plan only requires a repayment of 4,020 tonnes rather than the full 5,021 tonnes. The 1,000 tonnes not to be paid back is worth some EUR 20 million.

A payback of 1510 tonnes would hurt a great deal more than a payback of 500, so France has been making very loud noises about requesting ICCAT to spread the payback over a longer period.

This is where the EU institutions come into play. Before the ICCAT meeting, the European Commission, who represents the EU here, was given a mandate by the Council on what it should strive for in the negotiations. The battle between the Commission and Council was widely reported in the press and it is no secret that the Commission wanted a mandate for a very strong, precautionary approach with a reduction in the quota for bluefin. Council resisted, led largely to France, so that the final mandate was less conservation-oriented than the Greens had been hoping for.

As the negotiations here at ICCAT got underway (almost entirely behind the scenes and in the corridors, by the way, people here have difficulties even pronouncing the word "transparency" without stuttering) it became clear that France wanted to raise the issue of its payback. This could be done in one of two ways – either by persuading the EU to ask for a delay in the payback or by asking another country here to do it (in return for some other favour, naturally). Getting the EU to raise the issue would be politically very sensitive, since it would require the entire EU to agree to embarassing itself to ask for more lenient treatment for one Member State. Given normal EU politics, this would mean France doing something for the others, so it depends on how important it is for France.

We shall see how that plays out but so far, nothing has been said in the meeting.

In a similar vein, I had suggested a few days ago that most countries were so concerned about minimising any reduction to the TAC that they were not opening up the very thorny question of reallocating the current distribution of access to the bluefin fishery. That was rather optimistic, for the question has been raised, though the countries that consider themselves to be the most important ones quickly and strongly resisted. Again, that is still open.

Author of the note: Michael Earle

Green adviser on fisheries issues

michael.earle@europarl.europa.eu