Memorandum by The Fishermen's Association
Limited
INTRODUCTION
"I cannot recall another example in history
of a free country without compulsion from outside entering on
an arrangement so damaging to itself." Peter Shore 22
February 1972 Col 1164 Hansard.
Equal access to the common resource... a non
discriminatory principle... is the real Common Fisheries Policy.
The decisions made at the December 2002 Council
meeting were not designed to change that fundamental priniciple.
There is a very great misunderstanding of what
the Common Fisheries Policy really is. The European Court of Justice
has made it absolutely clear that the community system of national
quotas and the regulations governing these quotas at the end of
each year is a derogation from the principle of equal access to
fishery resources and non-discrimination laid down in Article
40, clause 3 of the Treaty of Rome. Article 40, clause 3 is a
very simple Article which says there must be no discrimination
between producers or consumers within the Community.
It is entirely misleading to refer to reform
of the CFP. The CFP is equal access to the common resource not
the management regime (the transitional derogation) introduced
in 1983 under which the discriminatory principle of Relative Stability
was introduced in the allocation of fish quotas to Member States.
However it is naive to believe that other Member States are going
to be content for all time to allow a discriminatory principle
to over ride EU law of equal access to the common resource.
The CFP has been a social and environmental
disaster. For the sake of European Union integration, the environmental
and social price which has been paid throughout Europe and beyond
has been enormous. That policy—the real CFP—can not
be reformed.
The real CFP of equal access to the common resource
has caused a Sea Clearances for Scotland and other parts of the
UK. This was not unexpected. The Commission had warned the industry
on 11 June 1992 that the way forward, as envisaged by the Commission
for the re-structure of the industry, would involve thousands
of fishermen losing their jobs.
— 196 vessels over 10 metres in length
left the Scottish fleet between 2001 and 2004.
— 165 were unnecessarily scrapped as
a result of the 2001-02 and 2003 decommissioning schemes.
— Almost 1100 boats have left the fleet
in the 20 years since the UK joined the then Common Market.
The political end game for the EU is an integrated
EU fleet, operating in EU waters under the central control of
the EU Commission being told where, when and with what to fish.
THE ECONOMIC
LOSS TO
SCOTLAND AND
THE UK
Scotland
The effects of the CFP on the Scottish fishing
industry:
— The annual loss of direct income
to the catching sector of a minimum of £334 million. Of this,
£110 million would have been crew wages, with the remaining
£224 million lost to the vessel services like fuel, repairs,
gear, insurance, banks, groceries, harbours, etc.
— Added value, fish processing and
marketing, etc., raise the economic value of the annual loss considerably.
The recognised GDP impact ratio for fisheries is 2.35 times the
landed value. So, the direct economic impact of the reduction
of the Scottish fishing fleet in 1975-2003 is now a current annual
loss to the Scottish economy of a staggering £785 million.
— The costs to public funds of unemployment
and other social benefits as well as broader economic consequences,
including loss of tax income, probably bring the total loss nearer
to £900 million every year.
— This exceeds by a huge margin any
economic benefits Scotland receives from the European Union and
funds like the European Fisheries Fund
DEFRA stated that the UK catching industry lands
over £540 million pounds in catches each year, resulting
in between £800—£1200 million of economic activity
in the UK.
However the value of fisheries products, at
landing values, extracted annually from the British Exclusive
Fishing Zone, amounts to £2.5 to £3 billion pounds,
of which a mere £540 million goes to the British Industry.
That represents a loss of between £ 2.0
billion and £ 2.5 billion to the UK economy.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
FAL has had the opportunity to see the excellent
submission of David Thomson and endorses his comments. We have
however the following additional points
CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT
FAL assumes that the Committee would agree with
the following statement:
A sustainable and profitable sea fisheries industry
must be well-managed, with effective communication and understanding
between fisheries managers and regulators, catchers and processors.
This will lead to policies and rules which are better understood
and better reflect day to day reality. This in turn leads to high
levels of compliance, to everyone's benefit
FAL fully supports responsible well managed
fishing. But the CFP (equal access to the common resource) is
not a system designed to ensure responsible fisheries management
but one that has been the antithesis of conservation and it is
the CFP that drives the UK and Scottish Marine Directorate's future
fisheries strategy.
Conservation and sustainable exploitation of
fisheries resources requires compliance.
It appears that compliance is a one way street.
The rules are there and you must comply even if they are illogical.
The aim of simplifying the current morass of rules and regulations
does not mean a weakening of controls.
Disproportionate action will not convince fishermen
that compliance is in their best interests and that they should
take responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof.
Full compliance needs full viability. Fleet
viability is imperative to a sustainable and viable fishery. Full
compliance can only come at a price if there is not full viability
in the existing sectors of the fleet.
If vessel operators are being forced to bankruptcy
due to inadequate quota allocations or limited days at sea or
the inability to access the resource due to marine closed areas
what recourse do they have?
How are the vessels to be treated that are currently
viable but then find they are unviable due to a cut in certain
species in the future and so unable to realise sufficient turnover
due to inadequate quota allocations? The deep water fleet that
operated to the West of Scotland is a graphic example of what
can happen.
TACS: They have not worked. It is an immoral
practice to dump perfectly mature fish dead back into the sea
on a science which is 60% accurate at best.
Current management tools: They are not working
as science is disproportionate to what skippers are finding on
the grounds.
RIGHTS BASED MANAGEMENT
TOOLS AND
MARINE PROTECTED
AREAS (MPAS)
Fishermen have for many years supported temporary
closed fishing seasons and areas to allow fish populations to
grow to optimum size provided there is scientific advice that
supports such closures unlike the so called west of Scotland "windsock
area" that was closed without any scientific justification
to appease the EU Commission's cod recovery ambitions.
However there is a growing concern within the
fishing community that advocates of MPAs as a management tool
actually wish to close vast portions of the sea to all forms of
fishing on a permanent basis. They want these areas declared off-limits
to fishing without scientific proof that permanent no-fishing
zones would actually produce more fish. Bio-diversity and sustainability
are only two of the arguments used to support such proposals and
Marine Nature Reserves.
Fishermen are easy targets and if MPAs/Marine
Nature Reserves are to be introduced then the customary rights
of fishermen have to be given priority. They are not just stakeholders
and they must not be denied access to the resources that have
supported them and their communities for centuries. They must
be protected from pollution, marine transport threats, pipelines,
gravel extraction, telephone networks, and eco-tourism if it displaces
the fishermen's access to local grounds.
The key principles, at least in the opinion
of the EU Commission, for setting up MPAs were spelled out by
John Farnell Director Conservation Policy in the European Commission
at a Conference organised by The Sustainable Development Intergroup
of the European Parliament in November 2005 and chaired by Struan
Stevenson MEP. These are:
(a) Such areas should not include a complete
ban on fishing.
(b) MPAs must be built on a solid scientific
basis, although the precautionary approach may be necessary.
(c) MPAs must demonstrate economic and social
equity, particularly where fishing communities rely on the areas
in question.
(d) The governing authorities must ensure
careful monitoring to measure the impact on bio-diversity.
(e) There must be full consultation with
stakeholders at all stages, including the design, operation and
review of MPAs.
To each of the above principles, we would comment:
(a) Neither should they include a partial
ban, unless there is clear scientific proof that it is absolutely
needed to protect the stocks.
(b) The scientific basis must be sound long-term
research with the onus of proof on the proposer. The fishing community
should be entitled to present alternative scientific opinion if
such exists.
(c) We fully agree with this principle.
(d) The monitoring should be initiated before
the MPA is set up.
(e) The consultation must be genuine and
meaningful, and not as often occurs, a mere sampling of fishermen's
views which are then ignored
CONTROL AND
ENFORCEMENT
COMMUNITY FISHERIES
CONTROL AGENCY
FAL understands that the CFCA was established
to ensure a level playing field of enforcement across the EU.
A level playing field is a much misused phrase.
Whose ball will we be playing with? If the Commission achieves
its objective then an EU fleet operating in EU waters on a non
discriminatory basis and run by a centralised agency will be the
outcome.
The Commission has little regard for the UKs
criminal justice system as being too ineffective in securing compliance
with its targets and wishes to see severe administrative penalties
as the norm.
FAL cannot support such an Agency particularly
as we know so little about it at present.
As for the Commission being sceptical about
the systems currently in place the introduction in the UK of the
Registration of Sellers and Buyers legislation has eliminated
the trade in over quota in this country.
Structural Policy: Has removed 165 whitefish
vessels from the Scottish fleet.
EUROPEAN FISHERIES
FUND (EFF)
The Scottish Government has secured 40%—£38.83
million—of the UK budget for a new European grants scheme
for Scotland's fishing and aquaculture industries.
The new European Fisheries Fund is designed
to help modernise and secure the sustainability and international
competitiveness of the fishing industry.
The £38.83 million will be split between
the Scottish Highlands and Islands Convergence area (£12.41
million) and the Lowland Scotland Non-Convergence area (£26.42
million).
Details of the timetable and how to apply for
grants will be announced by the Scottish Government Marine Directorate,
following a UK wide consultation on priorities for the funds early
next year.
The European Fisheries Fund replaces the Financial
Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) grant programme which
ran between 2000 and 2006.
EFF is programmed to run until 2013.
The UK money has been allocated as follows:
| — England |
£26.42 million |
| — Scotland | £26.42 million
|
| — Northern Ireland | £12.76 million
|
| — Wales | £1.07 million
|
| |
Separate funds will be available for Cornwall (£7.3
million), West Wales (£10.68 million, and the Scottish Highlands
and Islands (£12.41 million).
We still await advice on the timetable and information on
the priorities that have been agreed.
GOVERNANCE
REGIONAL ADVISORY
COUNCILS (RACS)
RACs were established ostensibly on the basis that they would
provide for a more devolved fisheries management However subsidiarity
does not exist under the CFP. Competence for fisheries was transferred
to Brussels. It would be contrary to the legal and institutional
framework of the Treaty to grant RACs increased responsibilities
in the decision making process. They are purely advisory bodies
and do nothing to transfer decision-making power away from Brussels.
In fact the Amsterdam Treaty explicitly rules this out.
The real nature of RACs is a different matter
— RACs can not provide for a more devolved fisheries
management.
— Subsidiarity does not exist in the CFP
— They will remain advisory
— They will not have a role in management.
— They will not become management organisations.
— Competence for fisheries has been transferred
to Brussels.
— They do nothing to transfer decision-making power
away from Brussels. In fact the Amsterdam Treaty explicitly rules
this out.
— They are designed to promote the development of
the CFP equal access to all Member States to the common resource
However, if there was national control, a repatriation, then
the principle of an Advisory Council, in fact a management council,
would not only be welcomed but should be implemented.
CONCLUSION
The fishing industry provides tens of thousands of jobs and
generates hundreds of millions of pounds for the UK economy. It
also provides the heart of many of our coastal communities who
depend on the success of that industry.
FAL suggests to the Committee that in taking evidence it
considers the views of the fishing communities throughout the
UK perhaps even visit a cross section of ports.
It is important that the Committee understand that it is
not only an industry which is a provider of employment but also
a historic part of Scottish and UK heritage and culture.
Communities through out the UK that are dependant on this
unique industry can not tolerate any further decline. They are
still suffering the aftermath of decommissioning in 2003 /4.
Although fish prices have high for most of the last 18 months
any profit made has been spent on leasing more quota and days
in order to catch the fish. So there has been no real improvement
to the industry and its communities. As long as the UK remains
in the CFP that will continue.
21 February 2008
| 
