APPENDIX 7
Memorandum submitted by the South Devon
& Channel Shellfishermen (K15)
INTRODUCTION
1.1 In order to understand the problems
of the fishing industry it is necessary to go right back to Regulation
2141 of 1970 and also to our Treaty of Accession. Reg 2141 (later
replaced by 101/76) decreed that fish stocks would be a common
resource to be exploited by all member states without discrimination.
1.2 When we joined in 1973 we accepted this,
but obtained a derogation for our 6 and 12 mile limits for 10
years.
1.3 In 1983 a management regime was brought
in covering two 10 year periods (Regs 170/83 and 3760/92) which,
among other things, renewed the 6/12 mile limits, allocated fish
quotas to member states and control of fleets through MAGP (Multi
Annual Guidance Programme). It is this management regime which
is being changed/reformed while leaving the central principle
of equal access to a common resource unchanged.
1.4 No clear aim/policy (eg sustainable
fisheries) has ever been enunciated and decisions have been made
by 15 managers (the Council of Ministers) for political reasons
(votes back home) and not for fisheries or conservation reasons.
All the evidence proves that the CFP has been an unmitigated disaster
for both fish stocks and fishing communities.
1.5 When reviewing the new proposals it
is necessary to keep in mind the fundamental principle of the
EU—no discrimination between citizens of member states (Articles
7 and 40(3) of the Treaty of Rome). Indeed, the Commission has
made it abundantly clear in both its Green Paper and in its Road
Map (and also when explaining its proposals) that the principles
of the Treaties will be complied with.
1.6 We have examined the proposals in accordance
with the terms of reference for the Inquiry ("To examine
the reforms proposed by the European Commission in May 2002 for
the Common Fisheries Policy") and will cover the bullet points
listed during our examination of the major components of the proposals.
SIX AND
12 MILE LIMITS
2.1 This proposal is most welcome, although
it is not clear if these limits are to be retained permanently
or through another derogation. It is our view, though, that they
should be made permanent as they are of such importance to local
communities and are the nursery area of about 90 per cent of all
species.
2.2 It is also an improvement that the host
nation is to be allowed to enforce its own legislation on visiting
boats, although it is not clear if this can only be with the consent
of the other nation. It is our view that the host nation should
be able automatically to enforce its own laws on visiting boats.
2.3 However, it is clearly discriminatory
to allow some nation's boats to fish between the 6/12 mile limits
and not others. The only way to avoid such discrimination is to
have an exclusive 12 mile zone for every state. The original dispensation
given to some states was to allow for historic practices (not
rights). Since then the efficiency of boats and gear has improved
beyond recognition enabling the boats concerned to catch many
times what they did 30 years ago—yet there is still no control
on gear, numbers or size. Quite clearly this has a huge (and detrimental)
effect on local fish stocks and communities. The only way to avoid
both this and discrimination is to reserve the 12 mile limit for
the nation state.
DAYS AT
SEA
3.1 It is inequitable to have days at sea
and quotas as this becomes a "double whammy". Franz
Fischler's explanation that his aim is to make boats uneconomical
and thus drive them out of the industry is immoral. If this is
the aim, then we feel it is more appropriate to have some form
of "tie up" scheme. After all, if, as intended, these
proposals lead to an increase in stocks, then it is only right
that those fishermen who have "taken the pain" should
be available to benefit from the cure.
3.2 If the Government is not prepared to
assist in financing a tie up scheme, then money should be made
available for those driven out of business and taking early retirement.
3.3 In any event, it is imperative that
the UK draws down on funds available from Brussels.
3.4 Days at sea are not appropriate for
fishing with crab pots as the pots are left in the water all year
round and are too many to be brought ashore.
EU INSPECTORS AND
ENFORCEMENT
4.1 It is generally accepted that the British
carry out more rigorous control than any other nation. Indeed,
in over 30 years landing into France our boats have never been
checked even once.
4.2 Whilst we agree the need to have a uniform
inspection and enforcement policy, we do not accept the need,
and we certainly do not want, foreign inspectors enforcing policy
on British boats and fishermen on British soil or our EFZ. We
are sure that this will lead to unnecessary friction. There is
also concern at the legal implications of inspectors from one
country having jurisdiction over fishermen in another country.
4.3 In the same way that British police
police Great Britain, German police police Germany etc, so British
fisheries inspectors should police all actions, including landings,
from Britain's EFZ.
4.4 If we have to share freely our EFZ with
other EU countries, then the cost of enforcing EU legislation
should be borne by the EU.
RACS
5.1 Whilst we accept that it is important
for fishermen working the same grounds to liaise, we believe the
proposals for RACs to be too cumbersome and unwieldy.
5.2 If, as proposed, all those with an interest
in a particular region are entitled to sit on the committee, who
is going to decide who should and should not be represented. The
different methods have different needs, and, even within the same
fishing method, we have different organisations. They will all
want their say, as will each country.
5.3 The same will apply to the many different
environmental groups.
5.4 It is highly unlikely that they will
ever be given any power as the Amsterdam Treaty specifically excludes
any power being returned to the nation states.
5.5 All that will happen is that the RACs
will end up as huge great talking shops with little chance of
concensus.
5.6 We believe that it is far more appropraiate
to do as we have been doing for 23 years—that is meeting
with those who fish a particular area (in our case, the mid-Channel
grounds) and agreeing a modus operandi. We, as potters,
meet with fishermen from Normandy, Brittany, Belgium, the Channel
Islands and the SWFPO once a year to agree potting and trawling
areas. Agreement can be hard to achieve, but any larger meeting
would never get agreement.
5.7 RACs should not get involved inside
12 miles and Sea Fisheries Committees powers should be extended
to 12 miles.
NEW BUILDS
6.1 We agree that there should be no more
grants for new builds.
NORTH SEA
AND OTHER
RESTRICTED AREAS
7.1 We accept that under her accession Treaty,
Spain becomes entitled to equal access on 1 January 2003 (as do
other recently joined members).
7.2 Even if initially Spain (and others)
is restricted to just non TAC species, there is bound to be a
bye-catch of pressure stock fish—and in order to increase
the bye-catch boats will try and maximise the non TAC species.
7.3 There will, therefore, be an increase
in mortality, greater discards and even more pressure on all species.
7.4 Our members fish almost exclusively
for crustacea—non TAC. If Spain were now to target these
species it could have a very serious effect on our members—not
only on extra fishing, but, as Spain is one of our main markets,
in our outlets as well. (It should also be remembered that, as
wet fish boats have come under pressure, more and more boats have
recently switched to crabs/lobsters, putting strain on both stock
and markets).
RELATIVE STABILITY
8.1 Relative stability as currently practised
is discriminatory. Indeed, in December 1996 the Government of
the time wrote in its Supplementary Memorandum on Quota Hopping
to the Intergovernmental Conference "The Court of Justice
has itself recognised that the quota system, as a system of national
quotas, is a derogation from the general rule of equal conditions
of access to fishery resources (see Jaderow judgement) and the
principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 40(3) of
the Treaty".
8.2 Without unanimity, it can not, therefore,
continue much longer in its present form. In fact, it has been
made abundantly clear in various Commission documents that Treaty
requirements will be implemented.
8.3 In his address to the Spanish Parliament
Franz Fischler said "From 1st January onwards Spain will
have access to the North Sea. We will re-examine the quota
allocations made during the period when Spain was excluded
from these waters. . .the Commission will apply Community law
to Spain in just the same way as to other Member States"
(our italics).
8.4 The proposals also state that any new
fishing opportunities will be made available to Spain (increased
quota, non quota species being turned into quota?) and that ITQs
will be discussed. Indeed, in order to comply with the Treaty,
non discrimination and equal access principles, some form of freely
tradeable fishing opportunities will have to come in. These can
either be in the form of ITQs or, as Regulation 1627 of 1994 requires,
EU fishing permits.
8.5 Such trade will have serious repercussions
on the British industry. Quota/permits will eventually end up
in the hands of those who can afford to pay. We will therefore
see most fishing opportunities going to Spain, Holland and France
and Great Britain's finest natural renewable resource will end
up in the hands of foreigners and out of the control of the British
Parliament and people. Even now almost 70 per cent of our North
Sea plaice quota, 60 per cent of our hake quota, 30 per cent of
our megrim quota and 55 per cent of our Dover sole quota belong
to "quota hoppers".
REGISTRATION OF
BUYERS
9.1 In those countries where enforcement
is poor, registering of buyers will have no effect on curbing
the landing of over-quota fish. However, if such measures are
introduced and enforced, they will enable the authorities to trace
fish from catcher to retailer and thus cut down on the landing
of "black fish".
9.2 They should benefit the inshore shellfishermen,
though, for, at present, he suffers from unregistered fishermen
selling (and undercutting) to hotels and restaurants. This measure
will assist in cutting out the illegal trade.
SATELLITE MONITORING
10.1 This will undoubtedly assist in overcoming
mis-reporting of where a vessel has been fishing, although it
adds yet more bureaucracy and expense for fishermen.
10.2 To bring the size down to 10m is going
to make monitoring the several thousand boats difficult and complicated.
Perhaps a higher cut off point would be more appropriate and make
monitoring easier.
10.3 An advantage for static gear fishermen
is that VMS may be able to assist us in identifying those boats
which deliberately tow through our gear causing thousands of pounds
of damage.
ENVIRONMENTALISTS
11.1 We welcome the proposed involvement
of responsible environmental groups (we are members of the Marine
Conservation Society) as we should all have the same aim.
11.2 However, many such groups are too radical
and their involvement may well exacerbate problems.
11.3 Who will select and how will numbers
be limited?
CONTROL
12.1 Too many decisions are made for political
reasons and fish stocks do not understand politics! It is not
possible to effectively manage one huge fishery with 15 managers
each with his own political agenda.
12.2 We therefore favour each nation state
controlling its own EFZ.
12.3 However, if one accepts the pooling
of resources, then (unfortunately!) control needs to be pooled
as well.
12.4 Much as we object to more powers going
to the Commission, we can see the logic of it under the present
pooling system.
SUMMARY
13.1 The 6/12 mile limits should be made
permanent and exclusive to each nation.
13.2 Quotas and days at sea should not run
together—we should have either one or the other.
13.3 If Treaty obligations are to apply,
then some form of tradeable quota or permit will have to come
in. Whilst this will benefit those already in the industry (they
will have security and something to sell on retirement), it will
mean that, eventually, much of the quota/permits will end up in
the hands of the few.
13.4 The Government must draw on all EU
funds available.
13.5 The problem of equitable enforcement
has not been properly addressed.
13.6 Politics need to be taken out of the
management and control of fishing.
13.7 Greater access by other member states
to our EFZ will put more pressure on all stocks and therefore
on British fishermens' jobs.
13.8 The end result of the proposals will
be fewer British boats, fewer British fishermen and the disintegration
of fishing communities.
29 September 2002
| 
