A disappointing performance

Commissioner-designate Karmenu Vella’s performance at last Monday’s European parliament hearing has been met with mixed reactions.

Environmentalist groups and the European Greens unanimously expressed disappointment and frustration at Vella’s refusal to commit on any policy directions, or even to adequately answer many of the environmental committee’s detailed questions.

On a political level, however, Vella drew moderate praise from his own allies, the Socialists, and also the European People’s Party: which includes the Nationalist MEPs, who are all pre-emptively committed to supporting Vella’s bid.

This polarity of opinion is worrying. Vella has been proposed for the environment, fisheries and maritime policy portfolio. All three areas are extremely vast and sensitive, and require in-depth knowledge of the subject, and above all need clear policy directions from the outset.

Fisheries in particular is mired in serious conservation issues and allegations of corruption at national level. Maritime policy is responsible for the employment of millions of Europeans. And as Eurobarometer surveys have consistently shown, the environment as a whole is an area on which the overwhelming majority feel very strongly, and believe that not enough is being done at European level.

The point of these hearings was therefore to reassure the European Parliament – and, by extension, the European voter – that the incoming Commission had a clear vision for the future development of European policy in all such areas. Indeed, laying down such policy direction is the fundamental purpose of the European Commission, which is expected to draw up the policies upon which European directives – which are subsequently drafted into national legislation – are based.

From this perspective, Vella’s point blank refusal to commit to any policy direction was disappointing. Moreover, he proved reticent even on the one issue with which he has already been tasked: i.e., revising the Wild Birds and Habitats directives, which is of particular relevance in the light of the Malta’s hunting and trapping record.

Nonetheless – and perhaps unsurprisingly – Karmenu Vella was at his best by far on maritime policy, which has immense implications for the ‘blue economy’: i.e., jobs and economic activity related to coastal areas and the sea. This is an area in which Vella has acquired considerable experience in his tenure as tourism and economy minister. Clearly, his answers on the issue of sustainable job creation in the maritime sphere went down well with all parties concerned.

But on both the environment and fisheries he came across as poorly prepared and often unaware of the issues he was being asked about. His responses were variously described as “vague, evasive and often inaccurate”, “naïve”, “unsatisfactory”, “non-committal” and “unconvincing”.

Pieter Depous, EU policy director at the European Environmental Bureau, summed up many reactions by declaring: “Either Vella was not allowed to make any commitments during his hearing or he did not have sufficient knowledge to do so. Either way the conclusions for the Environment Committee should be crystal clear. They cannot let him pass if they want the European Parliament to be taken seriously in the next five years.”

Yet the ENVI committee has already given Vella the green light for an almost certain acceptance today. This in turn suggests that the political factions represented in the European Parliament are motivated not by satisfaction with Vella’s environmental policy ideas – in fact he appears not to have any – but by political considerations which override the exigencies of the portfolio which he has been given.

Naturally the European Socialists have an automatic interest in approving a candidate nominated by one of their own member parties: especially in the context of a Commission under the presidency of an EPP veteran, Jean Claude Juncker, and in which Socialist Commissioners will be a minority. The EPP, on the other hand, is understandably keen to vindicate the questionable portfolio choices made by Juncker: who has already been criticised for relegating the environment to the backburner, and placing sensitive policy areas in the hands of Commissioners from the countries with the worst infringement records.

But neither is a very good reason to approve a Commissioner who will be responsible for European legislation on extremely sensitive matters. Surely, the job ought to go to the candidate with the best credentials and the clearest vision in those particular sectors. Karmenu Vella failed to convince some of the key stakeholders that he has the knowledge, insight and initiative to take on these problems. The upshot is that the incoming Commission shall not be approved on the basis of its expertise and vision in the key areas it will regulate; but rather, on the basis of political horse-trading between the largest political groupings in Europe.

To be fair, one must also give Vella the benefit of the doubt. Time will illustrate the extent of his actual commitment to addressing many of the problems of his portfolio. But by refusing to give any clear answers to specific questions, and above all by maintaining a non-committal attitude to some of the more pressing problems associated with his portfolio, both he and the Commission president have sent out ominous and ambiguous messages regarding the future of European legislation.

This does not bode well for the Juncker Commission’s declared aim to ‘restore faith’ in the EU.