What is billed as "the most radical reform of the CFP in its history" is due to be proposed tomorrow by the European Commission. This blog prefers to wait for the document and to analyze the details, wherein the devil will lie. After all, we have heard about radical reforms before and it seems to us that it is a little premature to start rejoicing about a purported victory over fish discards, particularly if that victory will mean more fishing jobs lost in the United Kingdom.

We have received the following information and comment from Callander MCDowell:

Fish to Landfill: This week, UK Fisheries Minister Richard Benyon spoke at a press meeting in advance of EU proposals to reform the Common Fisheries policy. According to Seafood Source, Mr Benyon is an ardent supporter of Mrs Damanaki’s reforms which he hopes will bring about an end to discards. However, he said any ban on discards must be practical. Mr Benyon also said that a discard ban would satisfy most of the 650,000 people who signed the Fish Fight petition (although we suspect that this is an issue that most of the 650,000 have already long forgotten having being persuaded by others to sign) but that he doesn’t want to achieve a system whereby we’ll be putting good fish in landfill because we can’t throw them overboard at sea.

Mr Benyon’s suggestion that any fish might be consigned to landfill is astonishing, especially as his department has just spent £330.000 looking at ways in which discards could be utilised. Unfortunately, as we have previously discussed, the Fishing for the Markets project appears to have failed to come up with anything new. One of their suggestions was to use the fish for fishmeal production which is probably what would happen if fishermen were prevented from throwing the fish back into the sea. There is absolutely no reason to even consider landfill as a possible solution and it is hard to understand why such an idea would even be considered. The problem with fishmeal production is that those who are against discards also seem to be against the idea of feeding fish to fish and so fishmeal production would probably bring about even more objections than discards.

Thus the only realistic solution emanating from the Fishing from the Markets project is to get chefs to promote greater consumption of under utilised species. This coming week, Mr Benyon’s department are sponsoring a day at Billingsgate Seafood Training School in which chefs will be shown how to prepare and cook these fish. We’ve yet to be convinced that the public can be converted to eating more of these species by this route. Just this Friday, Sainsbury’s continued to promote their Switch the Fish campaign with the appearance of their Switch the Fish van in central Manchester. The weather was not in their favour but even though there were many people on the streets during the lunch time rush, we didn’t see that much interest in Sainsbury’s promotion. There seemed to be more staff than visitors.

Mr Benyon has remained surprisingly quiet about what to do about discards despite being very vocal at its launch of his project. Perhaps we will need to wait to hear directly from Mr Benyon as to whether it is the fish or the Fishing for the Markets project which are most likely to end up in landfill.

He has also remained quiet about FALs Open Letter to him and is perpetrating the myth in today’s’ Scotsman newspaper that the CFP can be radically reformed calling for” serious reform of the fundamentally broken EU fisheries policy”. You cannot reform equal access to the common resource and that, after all, is what the CFP is all about.

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.