There is a new entity in charge of maritime affairs at the European Parliament: the Seas and Coastal Zones Intergroup, chaired by Corine Lepage (ALDE, France). Having failed to agree on the creation of a major Fisheries-Maritime Affairs Committee, like at the European Commission with a Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, MEPs will thus play the transversality card via a tool which is less formal but which does not have any real powers. It does, however, have freedom of tone and action – the agenda is free from the European Commission’s initiatives. For its chairwoman, this may only be a first step. “When I began this intergroup business, many people told me that it would not be achieved. Progress has been difficult, but we made it. I now believe it is a ‘step by step’ process. For the next mandate, if we work well, we may be inspired to create a real committee,” said Lepage. When mention is made of the absence of real powers, she replies with ambition: “Our objective is not just to be followers, it is also to be the driving force behind the themes”. What are the benefits of the formula? “We belong to different committees, which makes it possible to monitor what is happening in each committee – and discuss this among ourselves – and have a prospective position in order to be able to speak about a certain number of transversal subjects”.

Among the subjects to be tackled this year are: the protection of maritime biodiversity (rapporteur Isabella Lövin, Greens-EFA, Sweden), the development of marine energies (Alain Cadec, EPP, France), maritime transport and climate change (Matthias Groote, S&D, Germany), marine waste (Chris Davies, ALDE, United Kingdom) and the transport of hazardous materials (Jacky Hénin, GUE, France).

The first public meeting of the Intergroup, on 24 March, in the presence of the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, was attended by more than 130 people, who had gathered to discuss the theme of integrated maritime policy, proof that the subject raises more than just polite interest. Which mode of governance? Which financing? What future for the issue of maritime basins? What coherence with all of the Commission’s sectoral policies? These are just some of the issues to be discussed by the intergroup, in the hope that, before the end of its mandate, round table talks on the sea will be organised.

During the presentation of the intergroup, you made known your ambition of “generating topics which are not on the agenda”. Can you give us an example?

The idea of a European coast guard service. Would this be appropriate or not? The intergroup will tackle this issue next year. Crescenzio Rivelleni and Matthias Groote will lead the project and a public meeting will be organised. It is typically on this type of subject that the intergroup may act as a vector. We have great freedom and I am not afraid of tackling sensitive subjects because this is precisely a place where things are more easily approached than in the parliamentary committee. The subject of coast guards is a very sensitive one, which has been pushed aside from the EU agenda because greater focus was given to the material difficulties of accomplishment than to the very interest that they may bring. It may well be worth taking up the subject again and overcoming opposition. I think it will be necessary to start from the issue of interest and what this could bring. The advantage of the intergroup is to be able to discuss things freely, to be independent from all Commission texts.

Two and a half years after the publication of its blue paper, the Commission is in the process of discussing next steps in the Integrated Maritime Policy. What do you expect from this?

Something concrete. Perhaps it could be a little less exhaustive but more precise in terms of planning and legal and financial resources. This is what could make it possible to move forward as quickly as possible and allow people to see that something is being done.

Do you want something binding?

Perhaps it would be necessary for the Commission to legislate. We started off on a rather flexible basis and after two years – which is not very long, I know – we have noticed that there are some difficulties. Shouldn’t we therefore anticipate a more specific legal framework? Subsidiarity will probably be called for, but we should be certain that this is what we want.