Friday, 22nd February 2008
Brussels Briefing, February 2008
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was 50 years old on January 1st this year.
Article 38 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which created the European Communities (now European Union), stated that there should be a common policy for fisheries. It came into force on 1st January 1958.
It may be the CFP’s final birthday, at least in its present form. It is a sad indictment of this disastrous policy that after years of quota cuts, TAC (Total Allowable Catch) restrictions, de-commissioning schemes, lay-offs, tie-ups, emergency closures and redundancies, we have seen 60% of the UK whitefish fleet scrapped and thousands of jobs destroyed, despite the fact that the core objectives of the CFP written into the Treaty were aimed at preserving and protecting fish stocks and maintaining and enhancing jobs in the fishing industry. If ratified, the proposed Lisbon Treaty or European Constitution will formally enshrine fisheries policy as one of the handful of 'exclusive competences' reserved for the European Union. This will formally place fisheries policy outside the jurisdiction of individual nation states, although decisions would still be made primarily by the council of ministers, as is the case now, but with more input from the European Parliament.
The CFP currently does not benefit from the co-decision procedure, which means that the European Parliament has merely a consultative role. The new Treaty confers shared competence with member states in the area of agriculture and fisheries. From the entry into force of the new Treaty, supposedly by 1st January next year, the Parliament and Council will be taking decisions on fisheries matters jointly, meaning that the two EU Institutions will have equal power. This means that the role of the Parliament in EU decision making will be substantially reinforced. However co-decision will not apply on “fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations and on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities" (total allowable catches –TACs– and quotas). So while I am vehemently opposed to the Lisbon Treaty for a whole series of different reasons, if it ever does gain approval by all 27 Member States, the role of the Fisheries Committee members within the European Parliament will be significantly enhanced.
Although the CFP has been around since Europe was founded, Britain only joined up in 1975. Many people believe that Ted Heath ‘betrayed’ Britain’s fishing sector when he ‘signed over control to Brussels.’ The truth is somewhat different. When Ted Heath signed up to the CFP, international maritime law gave a country jurisdiction only out to 12 miles. Beyond 12 miles was deemed international water. As part of Britain’s accession negotiations Ted Heath insisted on securing a derogation for Britain out to 12 miles for a period of 30 years, thus protecting UK fishing interests in a European Economic Community that at that time only numbered 6 Member States. It was during the ‘Cod War’ from November 1975 until June 1976, when Iceland unilaterally declared a 200 mile fisheries limit, that international maritime law was changed and every country was able to take control out to 200 miles or the median line. At this point Jim Callaghan’s Labour Government signed over control from 12 to 200 miles to Brussels in a complete act of betrayal of UK fishing interests. When our 30 year derogation expired in 2005, Conservative MEP’s led a successful campaign to have it reinstated, against strong opposition from the Spanish. We were given a further 10 years jurisdiction for the UK out to 12 miles.
In the meantime there is every sign that that the CFP is going to be broken up, with control moving to a range of new departments in the Commission under the overall umbrella of EU Maritime Policy, while day to day management of fisheries will be effectively devolved to RAC’s (Regional Advisory Council’s) comprising fishermen, scientists and other stakeholders. The first indications of this new approach appeared at last December’s Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels, when approval was granted to a Scottish initiative which will reward fishermen with extra days at sea for using specialist gear to help certain depleted species to escape as well as volunteering information on immature catches. Increasing trust in the stakeholders and a willingness to work with them rather than dictate to them from on high, has marked the enlightened leadership of Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg.
Similarly, the rapidly evolving EU Maritime Strategy will see major changes in the way our fisheries are managed. In twenty years’ time it is likely that the EU fisheries sector will look very different, because of external factors such as climate change and because of our own actions. Climate change will have altered which fish stocks are found where in EU waters. New species may have arrived and former species departed to colder climes. Evidence of such movement is already apparent in the case of North Sea cod. Hopefully, improved management and conservation, linked to a diminishing fleet, will have led to an abundance of commercial fish and a good living for all those in the fisheries sector.
Commissioner Borg is also keen to improve the image of the fisheries sector, which currently enjoys poor respectability. Fishing is seen as dangerous and poorly paid and it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract new, young people into careers in the industry. By striving for improved health and safety on vessels and better pay and conditions for crews, the Commissioner hopes that the industry will once again be able to attract young, skilled people into a career on the sea. However, he recognises that this can only be achieved in a sustainable and profitable industry. More resources will therefore need to be devoted to research and education aimed at improving knowledge and skills, such as special training courses for skippers to give them a basic understanding of the science that affects their industry.
The Commission and the European Parliament are also striving hard to end the disgraceful by-catch and discards problem which is partly due to the TAC's and quotas regime of the CFP. Discards should not serve as an excuse for asking for more quotas, but rather for introducing more selective fishing gears and methods and a change of fishermen’s mentality to try to avoid catching undersized and immature fish.
At the end of January the plenary session of the European Parliament voted through a series of amendments, co-signed by me, which effectively strengthened the report on discards, enabling the Commission to introduce a ban from the outset, with CCTV monitoring fitted on fishing vessels. There was strong resistance to these amendments, primarily from Spanish MEPs. Commissioner Borg said he would probably select a specific zone to trial a complete discards ban and I wouldn’t be surprised if the North Sea is selected for this purpose, perhaps even later this year. A total ban on discards may end the annual abhorrence which has seen up to a million tonnes of healthy fish thrown dead over the side of fishing vessels in European waters.
It should be remembered that as marine fish stocks diminish world-wide, the importance of fish farming continues to increase in significance. Recently and for the first time, the products of aquaculture sold annually around the world, exceeded wild catch. The EU has been at the forefront of this exciting development and can maintain its leadership position, providing healthy and nutritious food to an eager public, if fish farms are allowed to develop in a way that is compatible with other coastal and maritime uses. The importance of fish farming for often remote, rural communities where few other job opportunities exist cannot be over-stressed. This year will see a series of major international conferences on aquaculture as the EU strives to regain global leadership in this vital field.
So when the CFP celebrated its 50th anniversary, there weren't many fishermen helping to blow out the candles and eat what’s left of a rapidly diminishing cake. Fifty years of micro-management from the ivory towers of Brussels has led to shattered fish stocks and broken livelihoods. A new era of calmer waters seems certain to lie ahead.
EU must abandon appeasement of Iran
In a heated debate in the European Parliament, Brussels on 31st January, I blasted External Relations Commissioner Ferrero-Walder and High Representative for Foreign Affairs Javier Solana, for their policy of appeasement on Iran.
We were debating a major resolution on human rights and the nuclear issue in Iran. Both Mr. Solana and Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner stressed repeatedly in their opening speeches the need for dialogue, negotiation and persuasion when dealing with the mullahs in Tehran. Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner highlighted the need for people-to-people contact. She even told us of the success of our Erasmus Mundus student funding and poverty alleviation programmes. It seemed incredible that, according to her, we are training Iranian nuclear physicists in our universities, at our tax payers´ expense. We are paying for poverty relief in one of the world's richest oil producing countries, because the ruling mullahs have corruptly stolen money from their own people and squandered billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons.
I told them that I was staggered by this policy and asked the question “What has our policy of appeasement achieved? ´So far no success´ according to Mr. Solana, ´the Iranian regime ignores us´ he says. ´More executions than ever before', Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner says.” I outlined the fact that 23 people were executed in the first two weeks of this year, including several women. Five people had their hands and feet amputated. Men and women are regularly stoned to death. This is the response to our appeasement policy from the jihadist, misogynist, homophobic, genocidal, brutal regime in Iran, which is the world's leading sponsor of terror.
I said "If we wish to support Iranian students, we should support the brave students of Tehran University who have demonstrated for the past five days, demanding regime change. Instead of backing appeasement, we should back the legitimate Iranian opposition. Instead of keeping the PMOI on the EU terror list, we should put the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Qods (Jerusalem) Force on the EU terror list."
