Is this the end of EU fish quotas?
DETESTED European rules blamed for bringing the South West's fishing industry to its knees may be consigned to the dustbin.
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) governs every aspect of a fisherman's working life – including loathed laws forcing them to throw dead fish back into the sea if they exceed their catch quota.
-
Newlyn fishermen throwing back a day's overcatch of monkfish with an estimated value of £1,000
Now, in an announcement tantamount to an admission of failure, the European Commission has called for a wholesale reform of the current policy, saying nothing else would ensure the survival of fish stocks and fishermen.
The news has been welcomed by the region's fishing communities.
Paul Trebilcock, chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, said most fishermen in the region would say it was about time.
"The CFP has been over-centralised, under reactive and ineffective, a result of which has been to bring the fishing industry to its knees.
"Fundamentally it has not done what it is supposed to and as result has been harmful to the industry.
"You won't get many arguments about that round here."
The CFP was established in 1983 to carve up EU fishing waters between the national fleets and is revised every decade.
Critics condemn it as horrifically bureaucratic, overly centralised in Brussels and so remote from the industry's front line that real concerns at a local levels are never heard.
The last set of rules, which clicked into place in 2002, paved the way for annual quota setting which fishermen feel have dealt their livelihoods year-on-year cutbacks.
A report by the Commission calling for changes of the policy has delivered a damning indictment of it, admitting fishing controls have not worked and the science supposed to underpin them is out of date.
The report says that 80 per cent of fish stocks in EU waters are still overfished, and about 30 per cent of stocks are "outside safe biological limits", meaning that there is a real risk of collapse of these stocks.
The Commission even admits that scientists are unaware of the state of nearly two-thirds of Europe's fish stocks.
Mr Trebilcock said the CFP was unpopular across the whole of Europe and radical changes were required if the fishing industry was to survive.
He welcomed early indications of the way CFP reform discussions were going, particularly concerning the devolution of power to member states.
"It's very encouraging at the moment – I am quite upbeat.
"There are some positive noises, but this is European politics and there is a long way to go."
Jim Portus, chief executive of the Brixham-based South West Fish Producers Organisation, said the CFP was long overdue for a "shake-up".
He said his organisation would be actively campaigning for the new CFP to be more locally responsive, respect inland territorial waters and put an end to fishermen being forced to dump their catch if it was over-quota.
"We look forward to responding to the consultation with the European Commission, such as applying some intelligence to fishermen having to throw away perfectly good catch."
The European Commission has invited "each and every citizen" to submit their views on plans for the reform of fisheries policy.
But this too has caused controversy, with some fishing leaders saying the new CFP should be decided by the industry.
Mr Portus said the idea that "Joe Public" should be given undue weight in the discussions over complex fishing policy for the people whose livelihood it was deciding "fills me with horror".
David Stevens, a fisherman in Newlyn, went a step further and said members of the public would not be invited to guide EU policy on farming or the chemical industry and so should not be given a say on fishing.
"It should stay within the industry," he said.
Overall, the UK Government has said it wants regional management of the CFP to be the cornerstone of a once-and-for-all reform to revive stocks and fishermen's livelihoods.
A spokesman said: "Ministers had a very constructive meeting, but it's only the start of a process that we hope will lead to meaningful reform and a more sustainable future for Europe's fisheries."
St Ives MP Andrew George, whose constituency includes Newlyn, said taking fisheries management away from Europe was long overdue.
"It has been bizarre to leave stock management to bureaucrats in landlocked Brussels," he added.
Meanwhile, the Marine Conservation Society, which has campaigned against overfishing and warned of the terrible damage which could be inflicted on the seas, told the Western Morning news it would be contributing to the debate.
A spokesman said: "UK fishermen have suffered as much or more than anyone else under the current CFP.
"It badly needs reform to be of benefit to the industry and to conserve fish stocks for the future.
"The Commission will need to listen to suggestions that enable sustainable fisheries to be better-managed throughout European and wider seas."
The consultation over CFP reform lasts until the end of the year, with new rules expected to take effect by 2013.
Do you have an opinion on how the future of the fishery industry should be shaped? E-mail the Western Morning News at wmnnewsdesk@westernmorningnews.co.uk or call 01752 765538.
19 Comments
View all
by Jim Tait, Scotland
Thursday, May 28 2009, 5:20PM
“Yes the EU control mechanisms are inept and obscene. However we miss the main point. These controls are an attempt to redress the irresponsible over-fishing of fish stocks by the commercial fishing fleet. Through years of ignoring scientific advice from ICES and other agencies the stocks are virtually destroyed. We use fishing gear that destroys the fishes habitat. We use nets to catch fish that have not even had the chance to reproduce. The result is that stocks get lower and lower. Yet every year the commercial fishing community drone out that there are still lots of fish in the sea. They will not be happy until the last fish is dying flapping on a trawlers deck. Then they will turn round and say it is not our fault because we were only following the rules (sometimes). The rules that they pressurised our dubious politicians to make.”
by Charles Henry 1945-(diuturnity), Somersetshire
Thursday, May 28 2009, 2:19PM
“:| I am not an expert on this subject Barry (sorry for shouting). . Others are far more able to speak, but now for years and years, since our waters were 'given away' we have seen the decimation of the British fishing industry. . Best Charles.”
by nic, penz
Thursday, May 28 2009, 2:07PM
“the fishermen get paid pennies ! the big families in charge get lots of cash, even have great hobbies like horse riding great holidays! and private education! they have raked the ocean for years! to pay for their property rebuilds, leave the fish alone, or pay the poor deck hands more brass???”
by barry luxton, rochester
Thursday, May 28 2009, 12:11PM
“Apologies, i won't call you Henry no more, Charles. No need to SHOUT though i can hear you. Just what are you on about, please enlighten me. While you are at it, perhaps you can comment about our inshore fishery that has been nutured and managed since we joined the eu, seeing that they don't have a part in it.”
by Charles Henry 1945-(diuturnity), Somersetshire
Thursday, May 28 2009, 11:29AM
“:| LUXTON; who do think nurtured and maintained our prime fishing grounds before the EU got their sticky fingers involved. . King Canute?”
by barry luxton, rochester
Thursday, May 28 2009, 10:49AM
“No that is a load of buster browns Henry, the eu fleet is not allowed within six miles. In addition there are numerous by-laws in place in various fishing committee areas throughout the uk that restrict the length of the vessels within this area. Some of the potting boats have got over that by putting permanant extentions that jut out from the stern of the boats to enable them to carry on carrying on, they are part of the uk fleet Henry.”
by Fisherman's Daughter, Mylor
Thursday, May 28 2009, 10:12AM
“I can understand quotas on endangered species of fish howevever putting a quota on the majority of fish in our waters was a ridiculous idea from day one.
It is such a shame that more and more laws are being introduced to cut back on the allowances for fisherman, not only in terms of how much they can catch, but also where they can catch and what time of year they can catch.
Fishing is some people's livelihood and as more and more of these laws come in it becomes extremely difficult for fisherman to make a living and provide for their families.
I agree completely that if a fish is dead when caught it should be kept rather than thrown back.
I'm glad to see that changes have been put in place. These fishermen could do without the law against them more often.”
by Charles Henry 1945-(diuturnity), Somersetshire
Thursday, May 28 2009, 10:11AM
“:| A quote from Peter Wyatt, Co-chair, UKIP Fishing Policy Committee.
"Mr Edward Heath 'gave away' our fishing grounds as a bribe for us to be allowed to join what was THEN the Common Market. . Now any EU fisherman can fish right up the high water mark. What were ONCE probably the richest fishing grounds in the WORLD, have now been overfished, not by British fishermen but by EU fishermen obeying EU rules which oblige them in the name of 'conservation' to throw back fish (always dead after being in a net) caught above quota and below minimum landing size."”
by barry luxton, Rochester
Thursday, May 28 2009, 6:07AM
“Fills me with horror the thought that the fishermen could have an inroad into the stock without anyone else having a say. The track record of conservation is nil. Think about when something was in put in place by the fishermen to enhance the fish stock, it ain't happend and it will not. How many times have there been court cases even when they have had quota, the choice was to fish outside of the rules. How many court cases have there been when illegally keeped fish was hidden in a hold somewhere. Some of them have had multiple cases. What happens after the annual round of who gets what in brussels, off the fishermen go, the ones who have purchaced all the quota, remove the quota in a matter of a few weeks, to be sent abroad. Then the majority of the uk fleet is left with the crumbs. That is what the fight is about, and it's the future breeding stock that defra are trying desperatly to keep on the ground.
At the moment for example, there are codling in the channel, the comment from the fishermen will be as always, we are walking on them as there are so many. These three year classes of codling are the result of rules in place to prevent them from being removed. Make no mistake. If the rules are not there, they would be removed, full stop. They are the future breeding stock remember. Hopefully more time consideration will be given to these future breeding stock to grow bigger for all to enjoy, not just for the reserve of the fishermen to earn their penny. Where are the south west herring shoals of old mr fishermen? what about the pool table known as the exeters, any comment on that. What about the supurb turbot fishing that used to be on the skerries? Have they gone on holiday by any chance. When is the best time to go and load up with bass, yes it's at breeding time when the fish play mothers and fathers, so off they go, he who gets there first gets the prize, conservation, i don't think so. It ain't jonny foreigners fault or the eu's, as i am talking about the inshore fishing, so who else can get the blame. Regards, barry a member of joe public.”
by Andy Chalmers, Javea Spain
Thursday, May 28 2009, 4:44AM
“If you saw the size of some of the fish landed here in Spain it is obvious the Spanish have been ignoring the rules from day one.But there have so be some sort of rule or the stocks will finally disappear.Lastly not all British fisherman are without guilt as the recent events in Newlyn have shown.”