Reuters reports that they had seen the Commission's draft proposals for a supposed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, due to be unveiled next week.

The Commission has warned that three-quarters of EU fish stocks are currently exploited at unsustainable levels, and between 30 and 40 percent of the EU's fishing fleet is not making enough money to remain in business in the long-term.

A reduction in fishing for a few years would allow stocks to recover to a level where fishermen can catch and earn more than today, without depleting the resource in the long-term -- a level known as "maximum sustainable yield," the Commission says.

To achieve this, the Commission will propose an end to the annual horse-trading between EU governments over fishing quotas, which in the past has resulted in catch limits being set above the maximum levels recommended by scientists.

Instead, EU governments should jointly agree "multi-annual" plans based on expert advice that fix quotas for one or more fish stocks for several years at a time to avoid overfishing, the draft proposal says.

But those pesky governments might not go along with some of the proposals as the fishing sector "wields considerable political power in some EU countries". There, on the other hand, other countries, not mentioned by Reuters, who have no fishing sectors to speak of, and yet they, too, will have a say in the matter.

In response to an earlier posting about "a new trawling system" we were reminded (as if any reminder were needed) that this possibility has been discussed in the past, though considerably later than the technology had actually been invented.

This posting on EUReferendum details discussions on the subject as long ago as 2007 and the inadequate response and analysis that was produced by the media.

But what is also welcome is that, as Clover puts it, "fisherman for the first time will be able to boost their livelihoods by avoiding dumping dead fish over the side." Fishing vessels are to be allowed to "earn" around 12 more days at sea by adopting voluntary measures such as "real time closures" where juvenile fish congregate and separator trawls which allow the catching of haddock but allow cod to escape.

This latter "innovation" is apparently a British proposal and, while it is indeed welcome, its introduction now illustrates quite how derelict are the decision-making processes in the European Union.

The issue of selective fishing we were writing about last October and even the World Wildlife Fund was calling for it that December. But the techniques themselves have been available commercially for well over a decade which, together with other techniques could have been introduced many years ago.

The problem is, of course, that the CFP is a political structure and decisions are taken centrally for the whole enormous and varied area through political negotiations between member states.

At the GLOBE World Ocean’s Day Forum on 8 June it was reported in Fishing News that EU Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki stated she “really needs help and support” on CFP reform. While Lord Deben asked “where will the fishermen be in 20 years time if we do not concentrate on the fish?” and stated “ Fish don’t belong to any one country; they don’t acknowledge borders and fishing nations need to be reminded of that.”

Let’s lay to rest once and for all this nonsense of fish not acknowledging boundaries.

Fish are a “common resource” only in the narrow sense that they are no respecters of national boundaries. That, however, is not the issue. Nobody claims to “own” wild species. What individuals, nations and local communities do claim is the exclusive right to exploit them while they are in the areas under their jurisdiction, such right being qualified only for the purpose of conservation in the more general interest. There is, however, no logical progression from this principle to that of allowing free access to all the waters of member states, which in fact is diametrically opposed to practical conservation.

Neither the Commissioner nor her predecessors, nor Mr Gummer in his previous incarnation of UK Secretary of State for Environment and Fisheries, have listened one iota to what the industry has been saying. In the last 30 years we have witnessed its destruction with the UK fleet having been halved, all in the name of conservation whilst at the same time allowing seal predation to reach mind-boggling levels.

The blitz of reduced quotas continues to create unimaginable problems for the whole industry both onshore and offshore while reducing, even banning discards is the new bandwagon “game in town” even although the stocks are recovering at significantly improved levels that ICES is not prepared to admit. Is this politically motivated science? He who pays the piper calls the tune?

In 10 years time there will be no UK industry left to speak of as it will be consumed by remorseless environmental pressure to give the politicians credibility at the ballot box.

Only an ardent Europhile would comment that “There will be no future for fish without the EU.”

The very EU fisheries policies which have wrecked the UK industry for the past three decades are to be repeated under this so called current CFP reform, until we, like so many before us, are eradicated and our heritage and way of life destroyed.

Under the Highland Clearance families were uprooted to make way for sheep and the people driven onto the seashore either to live or die. The parallel with our present situation has a striking, unbelievable familiarity.

We are told we are supposed to look back and learn from history, yet in the name of

THE FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION LIMITED

supposed conservation we are being sacrificed on the altar of the EU with our own government complicit in that treachery.

And the reason......... to implement the overarching EU strategy of establishing a single EU fleet operating in EU and Third country waters which is directed by the EUs Agents -- National governments and Producer Organisations dictating where, when and how you can operate.

The Common Fisheries Policy has failed to conserve fish stocks. It has caused untold hardship for fishermen and their local communities and industries. That policy cannot be reformed.

The EU Nation States must regain control of their own waters rather than the competence for fisheries remaining with Brussels. That has not worked. It has been proved to be ineffective and inadequate in the conservation and management of fish resources.

A J Patience
Chairman, FAL
24 June 2011

Here is some information about a proposed new "new trawling system that will cut down on the by-catch and subsequent discarding of juvenile and endangered fish". Is this the answer? Well, it could be but will it be adopted by the EU where 27 countries will be involved in any decision? Many of them have no fisheries and see discussions of the CFP as a way of getting some other benefits by negotiation.

Another story about dumping, this time in Ireland. The Independent reports that because of the tight quotas imposed on Irish fishermen they have not been able to benefit from the unaccepted increase in cod stocks in the part of the Atlantic Ocean now designated as Celtic Sea.. Apparently, only French and British trawlers have been able to get any benefits from the increased stocks, though the quotas imposed on them are quite stringent as well. Dumping of over quota fish is prevalent in the UK as well as Ireland.

And again, there are problems with the way it is discussed. The highly inadequate EU Bill has had its third day in Committee in the House of Lords. Various issues were raised during the debate and there was a reference to the Common Fisheries Policy even though it is not mentioned in the Bill.

Arguing against the need for a referendum, Lord Deben, who was once John Gummer a less than successful Secretary for the Environment, cited the CFP [scroll down] as one of the areas that needed reform but, curiously enough he thought it needed more integration, assuming for some reason that to be a panacea for a disastrous policy.

I want to say just two more things. The first is that if ever there were a policy that needs change, it is the common fisheries policy. It is hugely important, and it is based on a European competence, but there are some things on which the European Union does not have competence. For example, it does not have competence to enter member states' ports with European inspectors, but there is no way to have a sensible common fisheries policy without that. Who has been against that? We do not want people entering our ports. I cannot understand why, because we try to keep the law, but evidently we will not allow that. If we were to do that, we might do something about the very policy which is, for most of us, the least satisfactory of European policies. That is why, given the environment, it will be very important. Evidently, we are not going to do that unless we have a referendum asking people whether they are prepared for French inspectors to come into English ports. Of course, they will say no to that, because the question does not say what I want it to say: are we prepared for British inspectors to go into French ports? They would say yes to that. It depends what the question is. That again comes back to the danger of having referendums.

As muddled an argument as anyone has seen.

Later on in the debate, Lord Pearson of Rannoch challenged Lord Deben, particularly as the latter had referred to him in derogatory terms. [scroll down to bottom of Col. 444]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was good enough to mention me in his few remarks and to accuse me of what I think was the impossible and most undesirable dream of the United Kingdom being altogether free of the European Union in all these matters. He is of course correct. However, he then mentioned the common fisheries policy as though that has to be solved by the European Union and as though the EU will not solve the acknowledged disaster which the policy is, environmentally and in every other way, if it is prevented from doing so. Surely, from our point of view, as I have mentioned before, the answer is terribly simple. We simply leave the European common fisheries policy and take back our international waters. Seventy five per cent of the fish which swim in European waters all the year round swim in waters that used to belong entirely to the United Kingdom before we made the mistake of joining the European Union. We then manage our own waters, re-establish our fish stocks and let out any surplus to foreigners.

The following exchange can be read in Columns 445 and 446:

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I am afraid that the noble Lord is yet again misleading the House. The waters did not belong to Britain before we joined the European Union. We had 12-mile limits in those days and the areas beyond those limits were high seas. The decision to go out to 250 miles was taken by the European Union collectively when we were a member.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Yes, but we should not have gone along with that decision because we should not have been in the policy in the first place. I therefore insist that most of the fish which swim now in European waters and are fished by European boats used to belong to us and they could and should belong to us again. I do not wish to detain the House-

Lord Deben: The noble Lord really must not say that. It is not true. Most of our fishing grounds have always been shared with our neighbours-the French, the Belgians and the Germans-and we have always had to come to terms with them. All that the European common fisheries policy does is to have a sensible mechanism. It is not that the policy being common is wrong but that the policy is wrong. You have to have a common policy; otherwise you can only make these decisions with the marlinspike. It is just not true that we had 75 per cent of it before.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord and those of his view have been saying this now for 30 years. It has not happened and it is not going to happen. The solution for this country is to leave the common fisheries policy and take back our waters to the median line and whatever we had before in territorial waters into our own control. Then, when our own fishing industry, which has been decimated by the common fisheries policy, has been rebuilt, we can share any surplus and lease it out to people who want to buy it.

Lord Davies of Stamford: I do not know in which amendment the common fisheries policy arises, but I have to tell the noble Lord that if he is interested in that policy, he will rapidly find that the only explanation consistent with the facts is that the common fisheries policy suffered from an excess of member state sovereignty and an insufficiency of federalism. At every stage the European Commission, being the regulatory agency, has proposed quotas that, if they had been accepted, would have preserved the stocks. It is the member states pursuing their own individual interests that have always resisted those proposals on the part of the European Commission. As a result, the quotas have never been sufficiently tight and all these waters have been overfished. Under all circumstances, whether we had our own fisheries policy or not, it would be necessary for us to have regulation, quotas and some effective enforcement mechanism. If we disbanded the European Union, the next day we would need to set up a new common fisheries policy by agreement with a set of quotas and a common enforcement policy.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when we leave the European Union, we will not do as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggests. We will take back those waters that were our waters, take back those fish that were our fish and re-establish our national fishing industry. That is what we will do. As the noble Lord has mentioned, this was not actually in the amendments but as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned it in connection with me, I thought that I would just touch on it in closing.

There are two problems here. One is that, as anyone who has ever looked at the Common Fisheries Policy knows, the real policy is one of equal access to all the waters right up to the shores. All quotas and other agreements are merely derogations that are due to expire next year.

Secondly, the idea that if we run our own fisheries we shall still need a common fisheries policy because we shall have to have agreements with other fishing countries shows muddled thinking. An agreement between two or three countries is not the same as a common policy decided on by 27 countries through Qualified Majority Voting at best and consensus at worst and imposed on the fishing countries; an agreement is negotiated directly in the interests of the two or three participants.

While this site will try to publish any news and information that is pertinent to fishing and, particularly, the Common Fisheries Policy and how it affects the fishermen and the industry in this country, there seems little need to reinvent the wheel. Therefore, links will be posted to all relevant websites and blogs. In due course, there will be a blog roll.