By Robert Strasser (flickr) | BY NC SA

Ich bin jetzt nicht so der Agrarpolitikblogger, ich geb’s zu. Aber nachdem ich bei Philip Banse letztens erzählt habe, dass es keine EU-Agrarpolitikbloggerszene gibt, obwohl da 2012 fast 60 Mrd. Euro auf EU-Ebene für ausgegeben werden, dachte ich mir, es wäre mal an der Zeit, mich halt selbst der aktuellen EU-Agrarpolitikreform zu widmen.

Ich war dann Mittwoch beim Agrarministerrat-Debriefing der EBD in Berlin, hab mir Ilse Aigners Statement beim EU-Ministerrats vom Dienstag nochmal angehört (unter dem Webcast auf die deutsche Flagge klicken), und dann gebloggt, was ich so verstanden hatte.

Was ich verstanden hatte, war, dass der EU-Kommissar Dacian Ciolos (sprich: Datschian Tschiolosch) dem Ministerrat ein neues Papier vorgelegt hatte, um seine Vorstellungen zum Greening (zur Ökologisierung) der EU-Landwirtschaft zu präzisieren. Nur leider war dieses Papier für mich nicht aufzufinden.

Also ging ich zum letzten Facebook-Eintrag des Kommissars, in dem er von seinem Auftritt beim Rat berichtete, und bat, doch sein Papier zu veröffentlichen. Mein Kommentar war um 15:34 geposted, und keine zwei Stunden später gab’s eine Reaktion mit einem Link zu einer Seite, auf der ich das Papier dann finden konnte. Und wenn man sich Metadaten des PDF-Dokuments anschaut, sieht man, dass es tatsächlich erst um 16:55 Uhr am Mittwoch erstellt wurde, das heißt 30 Minuten vor der Reaktion auf Facebook – also mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit tatsächlich infolge meiner Anfrage.

Ich will ehrlich zugeben, dass ich eher mit einer ausweichenden oder keiner Reaktion gerechnet hatte, nicht mit einer zügigen, konkreten Antwort, die auch noch meinen Wünschen entsprach. Wenn das der Standard wird, mit der die EU-Kommission auf öffentliche Anfragen online reagiert, dann wär das echt erfreulich.

Natürlich hat der Kommissar ein gewisses Interesse, dass dieses Papier öffentlich wird, schließlich will er ja seine Sicht durchbekommen, und die Minister schienen jetzt nicht wirklich auf seiner Seite zu sein. Aber trotzdem mein Dank an wen auch immer im Team des Kommissars, die/der die Facebook-Seite betreut.

Jetzt muss nur noch jemand, der sich tatsächlich mit Agrarpolitik auskennt, dieses Papier von Ciolos auswerten. Das kann ich nicht auch noch machen.

PS.: Letztens hat schon die EU-Fischereikommissarin auf einen eher provokanten Tweet von mir mit einer Video-Antwort reagiert. Ich weiß nicht, ob ich so viel positive Aufmerksamkeit aus Brüssel noch lange ertragen kann.

Common Agricultural Policy

When watching the beginning of yesterday’s Council debate on the greening of the CAP (webcast), I admit I did not get all the references as I had not followed the discussions so far. However, today I learned that at the end of April, Luxembourg has issued a “Working Document” – not public yet still leaked – in order to provoke the European Commission with regard to the greening of the EU’s agricultural policy.

The press has argued back than, that, although presented by Luxembourg, the paper was actually a German document. This view was contradicted today in so far that only changes made to drafts of the paper have been proposed by Germany, not the paper itself.

This paper, which in the annex contains three options as part of a criticised (heavily criticised) “menu” from which member states could pick and choose their greening efforts, is reported to have received support from a large number of member states.

If you listen to the webcast of the debate, you will hear several delegations referring explicitly to the different options contained in this paper, while others just refer to the substance of one or several of them. It was summarised today that probably option B (Measures with regard to direct payments) may get the broadest support, but that parts of options A (Specific ‘agro-environmental operations’) and for some delegations option C (‘Environmental single payment scheme’) were also supported.

Because of this “Luxembourg paper”, last week, EU agriculture Commissioner Ciolos was forced to present a Commission paper in reaction, taking into account the discussion(s) forced by the great acceptance of the paper. On Facebook, Ciolos wrote that he “proposed some flexibilities and simplifications of the initial legislative proposal of the Commission”.

I tried to find a reference to this Commission paper in the recent agendas or the Commission’s public register of documents but could not find anything. I suppose it is contained in Council doc. 7954/12 ADD 5 (not public). Update (16 May, 6 pm): Following a question I posed to the Commissioner on Facebook two hours ago, the paper was uploaded and can now be found here. That’s what I call reactiveness!

Due to this new Commission paper, the actual presidency questionnaire for yesterday’s meeting was not really discussed but rather the options contained in the Luxembourg and the Commission working documents. If you rewatch the Council, you should read some of the documents linked above, then you will get better what was discussed.

Common Fisheries Policy

I did not learn much new things today compared to what I had heard on Monday, but it was interesting to hear that the German position would be to strongly support Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for 2015 in the basic regulation, not in the multi-annual management plans as a number of member states argued on Monday. Only for mixed fisheries a later date might be envisaged, but since 2020 was rather too late for Commissioner Damanaki, there would still be years in between 2015 and 2020.

I also heard that the Danish Council presidency is due to present a wording proposal for the discard ban very soon. In leaked documents (not available online) I have seen so far that contain amendment proposals for the new basic Common Fisheries Policy regulation, the issue of discards was indeed considered to be discussed after Monday’s the Council, so that sounds realistic to me. If anyone would like to leak this drafting proposal to me once it is out, you find my email on the about page.

The next Fisheries Council will take place on 12 June 2012 and is supposed to give general guidance on the Council’s main positions regarding the CFP reform, so issues like the discard ban and MSY will have to be decided until then.

I’m not what one might call a radical environmentalist. In fact, I have more hope in citizens changing their behaviour than in governments agreeing on reasonable politics in this regard. However, seeing the lack of ambition in the Council of Ministers compared to the ambition that the European Commission has put forward for its reforms of the EU’s agriculture and the EU’s fisheries policy  is quite disappointing.

For me, this underlines that it is not necessarily the “unelected bureaucrats in the Commission” that are the problem but the elected ministers who prefer useless compromises that confirm the status quo over ambitious 21st century policies that take into account how the earth will look like in 50 years.

Just saying.

As far as I understood, this system is basically a management and control system for the planning and operational execution of the external actions of the European Commission, including all aspects of contracting and audit involved.

One of the 21 modules of this information system – the European Court of Auditors audited five of them – for instance contains contracts the Commission makes in its external actions:

“The Contracts module would enable a user to search all contract records awarded to a given beneficiary. Any contract record so identified would typically contain, among other data, the contract number, a short description of the contract, its status and type, the name of the department and persons in charge, the geographical zone concerned, the contract’s signature and end dates and the contract’s amount and budget lines concerned.

A scanned copy of the contract itself and its accompanying annexes would also be attached to it. Moreover, the contract record would likely be linked, for example, to several records in the Invoices module, corresponding to the invoices received from the beneficiary. From this record, the user would thus be able to navigate through all records related to the action concerned, as well as to directly consult an electronic version of the corresponding documents.”

Another module, the Evaluations Module, has actually never been used:

“A Commission working paper from 2004 suggested that the Evaluations module of CRIS had been planned to provide a complete overview of mid-term and final evaluations managed by delegations and operational units. However, this module has never been used and it did not contain any records. The Commission had no documentation available to explain this situation.”

According to the European Court of Auditors (ECA), about 5000 individuals have used CRIS in 2010 in about 800,000 sessions. The system has cost 13 million Euro in 2011. The main criticism that ECA has to the system is that:

“CRIS does not include a standard mechanism to limit users’ access rights to certain categories of data. In two specific cases, ad hoc technical mechanisms had to be developed so that sensitive documents were not accessible to all users. Apart from these two exceptions, all CRIS users automatically have access to all CRIS data. This situation puts into question the confidentiality of CRIS data, particularly in the case of the few external users of the system. “

This global access to the data was particularly problematic because the database also contains personal data:

“the Court identified documents containing personal data and that were attached to CRIS records […]. These included more than 2 000 CVs attached to records in several CRIS modules and that could thus be accessed by all CRIS users”

I like the answer that the Commission gave (annex to the report) regarding this data protection problem:

“It should be underlined that supporting documents are subject to ‘passive’ storage without any further processing by the application. As a consequence, they do not contain searchable data, i.e. it is not possible to operate a search in CRIS by the name of a given person appearing in an attachment.”

This clearly shows that the Commission has understood the concept of personal data protection – it’s all about searchability. Not.

In summary, the European Court of Auditors report finds many shortcomings that kind of show a piecemeal approach to information management. CRIS has been adapted and developed further since it became operational in 2002, but while it provides the Commission with relevant information, it’s functionality and usability is far from perfect and parts of the system overlap with other information systems (such as the Commission’s auditing system).

One therefore has to hope that the promise of the Commission in the annex is kept:

“The Commission has started a process of rationalising its IT landscape where the main objective is to prevent multiple systems from covering identical or similar processes and to integrate DG-specific needs within corporate solutions.”

That’s probably subject to another European Court of Auditors report…

12:50 END OF LIVE BLOGGING

12:45

Danish Presidency: It is difficult to conclude after this discussions. I have heard the mentioning of the socio-economic dimension. But we have a great responsibility as we discuss the future of the situation not just for fisheries. This should also be seen with regard to Rio+20. But I recognise that some member states doubt MSY can be reached until 2015 and that mixed fisheries may be a problem. As presidency, we think we should keep 2015 as a goal but takes into account that this cannot be reached for all stocks. We still need to fix a final date, such as 2020. On integrating environmental dimension into the CFP, but a number of delegations want a balance of environment and other important factors. Now we will look back at the text of the basic regulation and find solutions.

The Council has looked at 9155/12/REV and will continue to discuss on the situation on the basis of today. Now we go to lunch. See you back at 3 pm.

12:44

Maria Damanaki: We have to work more, all of us, in order to find some solutions to the problems raised. I have nothing more to add.

12:41

CROATIA: In principle, Croatia supports MSY. However, the text should include the reference “whenever possible” with regard to 2015. In mixed fisheries, setting a single species as the reference could mean full closure of fisheries with bad impact on the social-economic dimension. Details of reaching MSY should be in Multiannual Plans. Mixed fisheries is particular relevant in the Med. We should consider selectivity and other measures depending on the area. There is still a lack of data in mixed in multi-species fishing areas. We should also agree what these terms actually means. All analysis should also take into account socio-economic dimension. CFP and environmental protection should be on the same level. On NATURA 2000, the Commission should facilitate dialogue.

12:38

DENMARK: We support the goal of reaching MSY in 2015. We need a concrete final data 2020 as the very latests date, and this should be in the basic regulation while operational details should be in the multiannual plans. On mixed fisheries, we should consider selective gear to protect vulnerable species. This should be done in a ecosystem approach, following from the obligations coming from the Marine Strategy. The future fund could support this, i.e. by financing studies and the collection of data. We need a very simple clear flexible procedure to manage these matters coordinatedly, and the Commission can fulfil that role. Member states could also enlarge regional coordination on environmental measures.

12:35

ITALY: The path that Maria Damanaki has pointed out is the right one. We need a quality leap forward. We generally support general line of COM proposal. I would add to that that we do have to work on the COM proposal with regard to the Mediterranean. We need specific solutions there. In the future CFP there should be a system of Multiannual Plans that sets out MSY targets. Now to achieve that particular result, we need particular studies on all possible scenarios in the Mediterranean as we are talking a lot of species that caught – and this may take some time. We need to be committed to that process. It is vital to ensure that MSY is reflected in each multiannual plan for each target species. We need to balance when just one target species is vulnerable. We have to be reasonable. My basic line is that what Maria is suggesting is on the right track.

12:31

CYPRUS (Note: Next EU Council Presidency): If we are to respect MSY, this involves an international committment but we also need to consider the viability of the sector, but we need to be realistic. The basic regulation should be a point of reference, but we then have to fix the details in each region for each stock depending on scientific data. We need to see effects also on socio-economic dimension. Mixed fisheries as the general situation in the Mediterranean, we have to see how MSY can be practically reached. We need enough flexibility to implement MSY. With regard to the envirionmental dimension, we already have sufficient means in the EU to fulfill our obligations. We need to work very closely between institutions and member states. The Commission has a coordinating role in all this.

12:27

PORTUGAL: We agree with those who want to reach MSY, but those targets have to be realistic and have to be adapted to different fisheries. All MSY targets need to be based on scienific data that include also socio-economic objectives. We need to get to MSY gradually, and we won’t make it until 2015 for some species, the rest for 2020. The detailed timeframes should be in the Multiannual Plans, and member states need to be properly involved in setting up this plans. Portugal has a lot of mixed fisheries: Setting MSY will be linked to discard ban and we need a specific approach to all of this. We need a more in depth look in that to answer whether we have sufficient instruments. More selective gear is probably best measure to address this. The CFP proposal does contain enough proposals to fit with the marine strategy framework. The Commission should make it possible to coordinate between the regions. We might need to look at the different scales of regions and define sub-regions. We do hae to bear in mind socio-economic effects when talking about environmental measures.

12:25

SLOVAKIA (new minister): As a landlocked countries, questions one and two and support compromise between coastal countries and Commission. We need a compensation for aquaculture producers who lose income through NATURA 2000.

12:21

ESTONIA: Estonia supports Johannisburg declaration of 2002. MSY should be in basic regulations, while details should be in multiannual management plan. Where it cannot be reached until 2015, the plans should define a clear year for each species. We need to get to MSY step by step to give the sector time to adapt to the changes. It’s impossible to reach MSY for all species at the same time (Baltic cod -> sprat). MSY objectives should be phrased flexibly. Mixed fisheries should be dealt with on a case by case basis, including the use of selective measures. The MSY objectives will improve marine environment, also linked to the econsystem approach in managing stocks. But we need to consider the protection of spawning areas also from other human activities. On NATURA 2000, the matters of implementation falls within the competence of the member states and Commission can contribute with information exchange.

12:17

IRELAND: Fully support MSY. Transition to MSY will need to be on phased basis taking into account socio-economic impact. Basic regulation should set high level principles. MSY or MSY-proxy needs to be flexible, set in multiannual plans. Australian experience on mixed fisheries shows that FMSY cannot be reached for all species. On environmental: Article 9 of CFP and Art 2 of Marine STrategy framework don’t seem to be consistent. CFP cannot be dominated by environmental policy alone. We need clear definitions of what MSY means in mixed fisheries. Implementation timeframe for MSY should be progressive where possible by 2015, with endpoint 2020.

12:15

GREECE: MSY can be a good method where there are single species. In the Med where we have mixed species MSY can be dangerous. It may create socio-economic difficulties. 2015 could be a proper target date, not necessarily 2020, but all criteria need to be taken into account and we need to decide which species can be put under these goals. Regarding environmental measures: The new fund could be used to develop studies. And the Commission could give guidelines.

12:12

ROMANIA (new minister): We support MSY. But we need to consider all three pillars. 2015 is too ambitious, especially where the resources are shared with third countries. MSY needs to come gradually. The basic CFP just creates a general framework, details should be set up in multiannual plans. In the Black Sea, we need to step up cooperation with third countries. Mixed fisheries have specific demands, and we need to build on Member States experiences. It is necessary to diversify methods to reach environmental goals. This needs to be tackled at regional level. The Commission has a coordination role in this regard.

12:08

MALTA: Target of MSY where stocks are shared with third countries should come with regionalisation. Specific timeframes, 2015, 2020 or any other date should be decided at regional level through multiannual plans. At present, the MSY is estimated by carrying out single stock assessments. In Malta, many stocks are shared with third countries, so results can only be reach to joint assessments. The Med is defined by different species and different gears. The multi-gear nature of the fisheries makes this even more difficult. In the absence of clear data it is unclear how MSY can be implemented in the Mediterranean. Even if there were accurate data for the central Mediterranean, the EU could still not reach the goals unilaterally. The environmental objectives need to be applied by all fishermen from all countries – this needs shared coordination. EU has to make sure third countries apply the rules, too.

12:05

FINLAND: The Presidency should work on reaching a compromise. MSY should be the overall generall aim of CFP. Details should be agreed in Multiannual plans with time tables on a stock by stock basis. We need more selective measures to catch juvenile stocks. The environmental requirements should be based on ecosystem approach. Appropriate tools are regional cooperation and financial tools. Commission should ensure harmonimous implementation.

12:03

LATVIA: We have been stressing MSY should be reached gradually without negative effect to the sector. MSY only until 2015 where possible but at latest for 2020. At the Council level, we should give general guidelines for multiannual plans but decisions should be taken at regional level. On mixed fisheries there are doubts whether goals can be reached. We need multi-species plans and take into account international obligations. More selective gear are one possible measure. On environmental requirements, we need to consider MSY also economic and social needs. Environment is sufficiently addressed in CFP documents.

11:58

LITHUANIA: The basic regulation should only include a general provision on achieving MSY, taking into account areas where other countries also fish in the same region. Fish mortality rates should be the basis and interaction between stocks should be . We don’t think MSY can be reached until 2015, especially where there is no good data. This could negatively impact the data. So MSY until 2015 only where possible. On mixed fisheries, there should be multi-special and multi-anual plans. solution is more selective gear. We should strengthen cooperation between industry and scientist. Environmental aspects should not be more important than social economic dimension. We should invest in more selective fishing gear. To this end, we need all possible sources to support and not just the EU fish fund. The 12 nautical mile rules should be decided by the member states after consultation with Commission. For other waters, decisions should be taken through regionalisation approach.

11:55

SLOVENIA: Achieving environmental sustainablity goes in line with socio-economic. MSY should be introduced on step by step process taking into account regional differences. We thus need to be flexible. The basic regulation thus defines just the basic aim of reaching MSY, while the Multiannual Management Plans would set the timeline. We need better scientific data, especially in the Mediterreanean. On sustainability: We need to strike a balance between env, social and economic pillars. We need to think about new measures in the new fisheries funds. We should help small scale fishermen to make the transition to MSY fishing.

11:51

BELGIUM: We achieve MSY until 2015. We can be gradual in reaching this if there is no sound scientific advice. Multiannual plans are the most appropriate plan to reach this objective. The Commission proposal to take most vulnerable stock as level for mixed fisheries is problematic. It is premature to draw this conclusion, it’s not the right solution. We need to give scientists the time make proposals for mixed fisheries. For the moment, we ned to work on more selective measures. It is obvious that CFP and environment legislation need to be complementary. But CFP may not play the second fiddle, and need to balance environmental and socio-economic impacts.

11:48

POLAND: We support trying to achieve MSY. But reaching this for all species until 2015 is not realistic, so this should be done where possible, taking into account also socio-economic issues. Multiannual plans are the best instrument to manage stocks at MSY. Interaction between stocks have to be taken into account. For example, Baltic cod is too large now and threatens other species. The regionalisation is important for this. It is essential to have reliable scientific data for mixed fisheries. The MSFD impacts CFP, but this needs to be done in cooperation between fishermen and scientists. We expect the Commmission to provide guidelines how to implement the environmental legislation. The COM should get involved when this does not bring any results.

11:44

FRANCE: We need to manage stocks at MSY. It has to be assessed with regard to the socio-economic impact of fisheries. We have to get there gradually to limit the soc-economic impact. We need to get to MSY 2015 where possible or else until 2020. We should work on mortality rates. The target for MSY should be in Multiannual Plan. Simultaneous MSY also in mixed fisheries is difficult because scientific advice is on a per-species basis. Until then, we cannot just focus on the most vulnerable species. With regard to environmental aspect, we cannot subordinate fisheries to environmental measures. We need a proper distribution of powers between EU and member states in environmental policies. Marine Strategy needs to be implemented by member states. We need a common EU approach to waters under NATURA 2000. We should not resort to delegated acts.

11:39

BULGARIA: We need to reach MSY, but when defining it we need to take into account regional specifics. We refer to the Black Sea, because there is no sufficient data. We don’t see how MSY defined for the Black Sea. Thus, there are regions where data is poor. MSY until 2015 or 2020 can only be reached where possible and where sound data is available. The obligation to implement MSY should not pose problems to certain countries. The EU should work on international level to reach MSY. The details of MSY should be agreed in RFMOs. The greatest challenges are indeed in mixed fisheries. We should use specific practical measures based on specifics on individual reasons instead on one-size fits all. We do support the combining of environmental and fisheries objectives and we rely on the active role of the Commission.

11:36

UNITED KINGDOM: We need to be ambitious. We need to reach MSY. We assume to talk about FMSY referring to mortality. We are commited to do this already. The details how to get there needs to be based on sound scientific advice. Multiannual plans should show how to reach the goals for each fisheries and to propose the most approprate measures. In mixed fisheries, MSY should be flexible. Mixed fisheries needs a mix of measures that should be delivered regionally. Fish management is part of a wider policy of the marine environment. The CFP should lead to good environmental status. Legal provisions should allow member states to propose measures to reach the goals. Rules should apply to all vessels in a given areas.

11:31

SPAIN: We have made efforts in last years and moved from 2 to 13 populations at MSY, and we need to continue to reach this goal in 2015 IF that is possible. But for some stocks we should target 2020. It’s difficult to put these targets in the basic regulation. It is quite difficult to reacht MSY for mixed fisheries because you don’t have the means. This fisheries is typical for the Mediterranean. We need to apply “optimal” sustainable yield. Reaching MSY needs to be a slow process. At the last time we talked about hake. There could be a range of values for MSY there. Everybody in mixed fisheries needs to be flexibel to get all populations. We could focus on fishing efforts, . On environmental issues: We should not just consider CFP and its effects on the sea but also other marine activities. If we concentrate solely on environment, there will be no man on the sea.

11:29

NETHERLANDS: The Johannisburg decisions on MSY have to be followed by the EU. The basic regulation has to give a very clear description of MSY and should be based on mortality rates until 2015. The scientists will need to develop appropriate models and stakeholders need to be involved. It’s however difficult to include mixed fisheries. We need various methods to address this. On the Marine Strategy: We need a proper coordination between the CFP and the environmental law, not just in protected areas. Fishermen from other member states should also follow these rules, not just those from your own country.

11:24:

GERMANY: The principle of MSY is our guiding light, not just in the basic regulation but also in Multiannual Plans. We should not lose sight of the reality, it needs to be based on mortality. More specifically, we need to consider mortality rates of the different stocks until 2015. On mixed fisheries: This raises particular problems, but the multiannual plans give us possibilities to deal with this problem. So far, we lack appropriate scientific advice, but now these analysis are ready, but this cannot get you to MSY for every species. This means a modern quota management system and landing obligations. On the Marine Strategy Directive: The CFP has responsibilities in this regard; decisions should be taken on scientific basis. The Natura 2000 Commission catalogue of criteria provided by the could be used by the member states. We need to make sure that environmental law provisions are protected, and it has to be done through ordinary legislative procedure.

11:21

SWEDEN: On MSY: I refer to a new OECD report which establishes the value of builidng up stocks to MSY. This guarantees resources for fishermen to have good incomes. MSY is crucial for economic and social viability of. Get there until 2015?. We should get there through Multiannual Plans. On mixed fisheries: The most vulnerable species should determine the maximum fishing. Solution is more selective gear. The link between fish and environment is important to emphasise. Environmental goals have to be reached. The Commission should ensure that the legislative framework is firm and consistant.

11:12

Maria Damanaki: We have already discussed Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), I have heard your concerns. We have achieved MSY for 20 stocks. Because of that, we have given more income to fishermen in the North? Sea. Now nobody at the table talks against MSY. We have some concerns about the timelines and the schedule. Let’s focus on how to achieve this goal. Our proposal is on the table. Two important problems: 1) We don’t have concrete scientific advice for all the stocks. 2) For mixed fisheries we cannot have the most vulnerable stocks to define the limits for fishing. If you say you need two years more for MSY we can discuss this. But we need an end of the line. We can be flexible in the mid-term, but we need the end of the line. Saying “where possible” “when possible” is business as usual, but we cannot do that.

We need a package that increases income for the fishermen and their families. Referring to environmental requirements: Some of you dont want to give designated powers to the Commission. Some examples: We have designated Natura 2000 areas in the past. For example in West Ireland: This area is outside 12 mile zone, so Irish national law did not apply. But we wanted to protect the deep sea world. Now we don’t have this possibility anymore because we would need to go through co-decision. Either you give designated powers to the Commission or you will have co-legislation. You have to chose whether you want to take years or whether the Commission can take decisions in a timely manner.

Tomorrow, the Council’s Working Party* on “Internal and External Fisheries Policy” meets, and the CFP reform debate is on the agenda. Agenda item 1 foresees the “examination of amendments” for the basic CFP regulation. Thus, while the Council at ministerial level still upholds the illusion that they are in an “orientation phase”, the negotiations are already ongoing behind the scenes with concrete amendments.

The problem: The respective document that likely contains these amendments (Council doc. 9561/12) is confidential. Member states are working on a legislative file but the public is not supposed to know who proposes what. While all reports and amendments in the European Parliament, the co-legislator with the Council, are made public, we are not supposed to know what is discussed concretely in the EU’s second chamber.

We therefore are therefore unable to democratically control whether what the politicians say during public debates is matched with the substance of the policies their bureaucrats are negotiating on the lower levels. EU democracy in the 2nd decade of the 21st century.

* = a working-level group of national representatives

Click here to view the embedded video.

Heute sprach Lost in EUrope Euroblogger Eric Bonse in einer spannenden 1-stündigen Radiosendung beim Deutschlandradio Wissen übers Eurobloggen, Eurojournalismus und europäische Öffentlichkeit.

Damit setzen sich die Euroblogger-Wochen in Deutschland fort, die ich im März mit meinem Beitrag zur “Unverlinkten EU-Blogosphäre” begonnen habe. Dieser Beitrag, vom Bruegel-Blog polemisch mit “Europeans can’t blog” aufgenommen, führte dann insbesodere in der deutschen und europäischen Wirtschaftsblogosphäre zu Diskussionen rund ums europäische Bloggen.

In Vorbereitung auf meinen re:publica-Talk hatte ich dann eine ganze Reihe von Beiträgen zum Eurobloggen verfasst – einer auch mit einem spannenden Kommentar von Eric versehen – weshalb die Netzweltredaktion von Spiegel Online auf mich zukam und mich bat, einen 5000-Zeichen “Debattenbeitrag” zu verfassen, der am Tag meines Talks unter dem Titel “Blogger verschlafen die Euro-Krise” veröffentlich wurde.

Der Titel ist nicht von mir und widerspricht auch eigentlich meinem Argument, dass die Krise das einzige ist, was überhaupt zur mehr Eurobloggen geführt hat. Aber naja. So richtig zu Debatten hat der Beitrag auf SPON nicht geführt, für magere 8 Kommentare hat’s gereicht. Kritische Reaktionen gab’s dafür in einzelnen deutschen Blogs, z.B. auf dem von mir im Beitrag erwähnten Kartellblog. und auf Fliegende Bretter. Bei Tim’s Fish Fight hat man die eigene Erwähnung zumindest wahrgenommen. Und auch bei der Neuen Züricher Zeitung wurde der Beitrag verlinkt.

Mein Talk war dann auch Thema auf verschiedenen Blogs, bei Hotwire, bei repub12, bei Anke Gröner, bei netzdebatte.bpb, bei netzleuchten und bei CARTA. Im Anschluss durfte ich mein Gesicht auch noch in drei Kameras halten:

• • Bei DCTP.TV
• • Bei Deutschlandfunk.Diskurs (ab ~Minute 6)
• • Bei Netzpolitik.org

Ich bin nicht wirklich Fan solcher Interviews, aber wenn man schon mal übers Eurobloggen außerhalb der eigenen Echokammer sprechen kann, dann tut man das auch. Erwähnung fanden diese Interviews unter anderem bei Blicklog, re-publica.de, Sköne Oke und Europaeum*.

Ich kann mich nicht erinnern, dass in deutschen Medien, abseits von Treffpunkt Europa (hier & hier), jemals so viel Platz eingeräumt wurde. So gesehen war die re:publica 12 trotz meiner kritischen Nachbetrachung durchaus von Vorteil.

Für mich selbst haben diese Diskussionen zum Nachdenken geführt. In meinem Post “Die Illusion der EU-Blase und die Entdeckung des EU-Schaums” wende ich mich ein wenig von der auch von mir in meinen Texten und den Interviews vorgebrachten Metapher der EU-Bloggerblase und der Feststellung der zu kleinen Euroblogosphäre ab, weil man europäische Diskussionen in Blogs auch abseits dieser Blase findet, wenn man nur danach sucht.

Mir selbst in den Interviews zuzuhören, war kein Genuss, aber immerhin ist mir aufgefallen, dass wir mit dem Mantra der der Brüssel-fokussierten EU-Blogosphäre nicht vorankommen werden, weil wir damit am Ende doch nur wieder auf uns selbst schauen. Wir sollten stattdessen nach bereits stattfindenden europäischen Diskussionen zu suchen – und dann finden wir einen ganzen Schaum europäischer Öffentlichkeit, der aus der Mikro-Perspektive der Blase(n) nicht zu entdecken ist.

So gesehen war die re:publica doch ganz nützlich. Und wer’s bis hierher geschafft hat, geht bitte zurück zum Anfang und hört die Sendung mit Eric Bonse!

* Von Europaeum sei im übrigen “In 10 Schritten zum Euroblogger” empfohlen. Da kann man dann nichts mehr falsch machen beim Einstieg in die Euroblogosphäre!

But is it really hard to assess? Well, let’s look at the first “priority” in the chapter UN architecture/reform:

“We will actively work to further strengthen the UN and enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, accountability and representativeness of the system. We are committed to continuing deliberations for the reform of the UN System and of its main bodies and organs. We support the revitalization of the General Assembly and the reform of the Security Council.”

Let’s contrast this first priority with the findings of the 2011 academic article “The EU’s Performance in the United Nations Security Council” by Spyros Blavoukosa and Dimitris Bourantonis regarding the UN Security Council reform:

“If we take for granted the EU rhetorical commitment to UNSC reform, then the obvious conclusion is that the EU performance in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency is very poor. Little if any progress has been achieved despite the investment of a great deal of resources on a national basis. […] In the three stages of the debate, the EU member states have not managed to articulate a single position to defend and push forward collectively […].

For the majority of member states, resources have been mostly invested in efforts to safeguard their own privileged position (e.g. the UK and France), pursue their own national priorities (e.g. Germany, ‘new Europe’), and undermine other EU partners’ political aspirations (e.g. Italy and Spain to a lesser extent). Thus, the EU engagement in the UNSC reform debate lacks focus and cohesion, reflecting the varying relevance attributed by its member states to the EU as a forum to pursue national objectives.”

One wonders whether the other “priorities” in the EU’s mid-term public-diplomacy-use document are pursued as vigourously and with as much unity. If yes, the level of blabla in the document will be matched by a respective level of failure.

Mathew believes in the existence of the EU bubble. For him, EU blogging is just the tiny fraction of overlap between the small world of EU experts and the small world of bloggers. For him, we need to build bridges to escape from the bubble. But all that Mathew needs is to open his eyes.

The EU bubble is a self-created illusion, and those who remain in this bubble simply fail to acknowledge that this bubble has actually become part of a foam over the last years. There are many bubbles in which European topics have found a place, and the foam of European spheres is all across our lives. There is no absolute need to build explicit bridges, because the bubbles in this foam are already connected, if not by links then at least by related meaning. All it takes is to understand and discover these relation by making a little step to the next bubble in the foam.

Take a step and discuss on a Maltese blog why inmates should be able to know their rights in the EU. Argue on a Portuguese blog why Portugal may still break with the Troika. Tell an Estonian blogger why his predictions for the mega-election Sunday in Europe were wrong.

Go and convince this Romanian blogger why Greece will not collapse and why the European Union will therefore survive, too. Contradict a Bulgarian blogger and tell him why the Turkish-Bulgarian EU border is not as unguarded as he finds it. If you prefer a decent argument in English, you’ve got a chance to tell a Dutch blogger why The Hague might still be the beginning of a European Spring.

Or, if that’s too easy for you, you may want to let to know a leftist Swedish blogger why the election results in France and Greece will not be the end to the Fiscal Compact. Agree with a German blogger who explains why you should applaud the European Parliament for passing a resolution against patenting human life. And just across the border, you may wonder together with a Polish blogger why the Polish should support Greece although Poland itself is not considered to be a very rich country.

Maybe you would also like to ask a French blogger why he uses a photo of Barroso to open a discussion on the future of the leftists blogosphere in France now that Sarkozy is defeated. On the other hand, you would not want to miss an amazing Spanish blog posts that tells you why we should stop focussing on “big” European politics and instead care for those that need attention, such as the victims of the Lorca earthquake last year. But than again, isn’t it more important for you to contemplate together with a Czech blogger on why Brussels bureaucrats have to resort to supporting “civil society” while the Chinese government actually takes decision with undeniable direct effects?!

Twelve countries, twelve blogs, 10 languages. None of these blogs is part of the EU bubble, none of them is focussed on EU affairs. Yet, all posts linked above discuss EU and wider European politics. They are part of a European blogosphere, without being written on explicit “Euroblogs”. Especially those bloggers who discuss the crisis and the economy almost naturally discuss national, European and transnational issues within the distance of one breath, one line of text.

All posts linked above have been published within the last two weeks. All were found and read with the help of Google and Google Translate. So there are relevant discussions ongoing, and one can find them. It’s a little work, I admit, but it’s comparatively easy.

EU politics may happen in a bubble for those who live in this bubble, but European discussions have become connected bubbles through the crisis and formed a European foam nevertheless. If you are part of one of these bubbles, you may not actually notice that you are part of this foam, but once you leave the micro-perspective, you realise that there is more European public sphere than you can see from where you were before.

The problem is that, in order to get to that point, you cannot just complain about the bubbleness of your own bubble. You have to go on a journey. That is why you should continue blogging, Mathew. However, if you want to create a European Online Public Sphere, you should actively look for it, write about its presence, not about its absence and the abstract need to create it. Because it is already there, right in front of your eyes, so there is no need to create it actively. By blogging about it, you can confirm and re-enforce the existence of this already existing sphere, but that is not its creation, it’s just a bird’s-eye view on it.

Why discuss this at length? Well, on Wednesday I wrote that I did not take any idea from re:publica. This was however not true. The idea I took from re:publica was to simply open my eyes and blog about European politics and restart reading new blogs, restart searching for interesting blog posts, discover what is already there. Because the European Public Sphere will not emerge through divine creation and fancy projects. The connection of the bubbles does not come from building bridges but from discovering these bridges. European blogging is part of this discovery tour – and it’s time to travel again!

Image: morberg (flickr) | BY-NC

Barroso “asked each Commissioner to travel to Greece to support the communication actions there and demonstrate visibly not just the Commission’s support for the Greek people but everything it had done to lay the groundwork for inclusive growth and sustainable development in Europe.”

This request closed the discussion (item 8 on the agenda) on the Commission Communication on Growth in Greece. Barroso and Rehn basically said during the meeting that all that was needed was to communicate better because everything the Commission was doing was fine – now it was just on Greece to deliver.

Or, in short: Travel to Greece, smile, and everything will be fine.