June 2000

THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE UK FISHING INDUSTRY

The European Commission is currently preparing a Green Paper, due at the end of this year, which will set out the objectives for CFP reform. There is mounting tension within the UK fishing industry as proposals for the Green Paper are discussed. British waters contain 65% of all the fishing resources in the entire EU and Scottish ports account for almost three-quarters of all the fish landed in the whole of the UK.

After Britain joined the EU, our waters were protected from a vast influx of foreign vessels by the temporary retention of our 6 and 12 mile limits and by limiting access to the North Sea to those countries who traditionally fished there, such as Norway, Germany, Belgium and France. Huge conservation zones like the Shetland and Irish Boxes, have been the subject of even more stringent access agreements. Fishing quotas and technical conservation measures such as enlarged net mesh sizes, have attempted to control over-fishing and related problems such as discarding and dumping of fish back into the sea. Now, however, all of this is up for grabs. The CFP review could prise open the North Sea and Irish Sea to all comers and could even remove the 6 and 12 mile limits, allowing foreign vessels to fish right up to our shorelines. However, the indications are that such an outcome is unlikely.

Under present arrangements, the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Danes and Finns have been denied access to the North Sea, although the Spanish in particular have often managed to get around this by quota hopping. There are almost 18,000 vessels in the Spanish fishing fleet, compared to 7,800 in the UK, so the scale of a potential invasion by the Spanish Armada could be considerable. At present, hundreds of Spanish vessels, primarily from Galicia, are tied up, unable to fish in their main Mediterranean and Atlantic fishing grounds, after the Moroccan Government threw them out. The Moroccans are demanding more cash from the European Commission before they allow the 450 Spanish vessels who fish in their waters to return. The CFP is paying the Spanish fishermen to stay at home while negotiations continue. Meanwhile, the Spaniards are looking enviously at the rich fishing resources surrounding the British Isles.

Third country agreements are a common feature of the CFP. Most of the agreements between the EU and Northern countries such as Norway, are purely on a reciprocal basis. Fishing rights in EU waters are exchanged for fishing rights in the national waters of the country in question. However, most fisheries agreements with Southern states are on a "fish for money" basis, meaning third countries trade the rights to fish for financial support. These types of agreements cost the EU over £269 million in 1999, with Southern Member States as the main beneficiaries. This represents a vast subsidy for the fishing industries of Spain, Portugal and France, partly funded by UK taxpayers.

Indeed, it has now come to light that while the EU were finalising negotiations with the Government of the Solomon Islands which would have established access to their rich fishing grounds for all EU fleets, the Spanish Government stepped in and, by offering a larger financial package, signed an exclusive bi-lateral deal which effectively locks out all other EU fishermen. In view of the fact that EU taxpayers provide substantial aid to the Solomon Islands, this kind of sharp practice by the Spanish is not universally applauded by the rest of the EU fishing sector. It is particularly galling when the Spanish are most often to be heard demanding common access to community fisheries resources, by which, of course, they mean the North Sea.

There is a growing awareness that the core objectives of the CFP have failed. Declining fleets, lost jobs and rapidly dwindling stocks of herring, cod and whitefish have been the trademarks of the CFP. The quota system, designed to conserve fish stocks, has led to the dumping of thousands of tons of dead fish at sea.

Fishermen who inadvertently haul in the wrong species of fish, for which they have no quota, have no alternative but to dump them back in the water, dead. If they attempt to land or sell such catches, they would be prosecuted. The ecological damage caused to the entire marine environment by discarding fish in this way is horrendous. It is staggering to realise that 25% of all fish caught in the EU annually - over 2 million tonnes - are discarded in this way. This damning statistic will surely be a lasting monument to the waste and inefficiency of the CFP.

Britain's fleet has been cut by 3000 vessels since we joined the EU. Now the European Commission has called for a further cut of 800 vessels and up to 3000 jobs, in a bid to protect fast-diminishing fish stocks. The British Government has protested on the grounds that this represents a swingeing 10% cut in the UK fleet, while the much larger Spanish fleet is only being asked to achieve a 4% reduction. However, our fishermen will almost certainly be forced to spend fewer days at sea in an effort to bolster fish stocks, placing a further strain on their earnings. In addition, with the intention of restructuring and modernising the European fleet, the Commission introduced "scrap and build" programmes designed to replace older and unsafe community vessels with fewer, but more advanced new ones. By utilising this programme to its full extent, Member States such as Holland and Spain now have modern fleets at their disposal, paid for substantially out of the EU budget. For the most part, the UK Government has refused to access the 'scrap and build' programme, because the Treasury has been unwilling to pay their share of co-financing arrangements with the Commission. As a result, the UK fleet is, on average, around 27 years old and unable to compete effectively with our continental neighbours. UK vessels are also increasingly un-seaworthy.

So what does the future hold for the beleaguered fishing sector? Firstly, there is a strong likelihood that the 6 and 12-mile limits will be retained after 2002. Virtually every EU Member State has indicated that they will support a continuation of this measure as a way or providing protection for their inshore fishermen and small, local fishing communities. Indeed, some countries, such as Ireland, want to see the 12-mile limit extended to 24 miles.

Of more importance is the debate about the future devolution of fisheries management. There is a widespread feeling, particularly in the UK, that for too long Brussels bureaucrats have made a hash of running the CFP. Now, everyone recognises that management of fisheries should be devolved to the fishermen, scientists, and conservation groups, NGOs, local authorities and, (God help us), even politicians, who live and work in a specific fishing zone. They are the ones who know best what measures should be implemented to protect against over-fishing in their areas. All of the national organisations representing fishermen in the UK, with the exception of FAL (Fishermen's Association Ltd) and their English sister-organisation Save Britain's Fish, are in favour of devolving fisheries management to a new zonal structure. FAL and Save Britain's Fish, who represent only 2% of the UK fishing industry, prefer to pursue a policy of repatriation of the CFP to Westminster. The majority of fishermen regard such an option as unworkable. They point out that in any case fisheries responsibility has been devolved to Holyrood, Stormont and Cardiff and that Westminster retains competence in EU affairs.

However, the fishermen say that discussions over annual TACs and quotas would become virtually impossible, if bi-lateral and multi-species agreements had to be negotiated with every country claiming traditional fishing rights in UK waters ( around 20) and if such agreements even had to be concluded between the devolved parliaments of the UK itself. It is worth remembering that UK fishermen fish internationally and have done so for centuries. We have, for example, up to 250 Scottish vessels fishing in Norwegian waters at any given time.

So zonal management is the preferred option with zones crossing international boundaries and embracing countries who have fished in these waters for centuries? Such areas could be defined as The North Sea, The Western Approaches, Bay of Biscay and the West of Scotland/Irish Sea. Management committees in each zone would take decisions on TACs (Total Allowable Catches), quotas, discards, subsidies, technical conservation measures and enforcement. The European Commission would continue to act as international referee, ensuring a level-playing field and fair application of the regulations in each zone, with the Council of Ministers taking decisions only where agreement could not be reached by participating stakeholders. The Commission would also continue to negotiate international agreements with the World Trade Organisation on the import and export of fish and would tie-up fisheries agreements with third countries, outside the EU.

Already over 60 regions around the UK, Germany, Belgium, France, Norway and Denmark have formed the North Sea Commission, as a model of how such zonal management structures could operate. By bringing together fishermen and scientists with a traditional interest and expertise in the North Sea, this organisation has acted as a trailblazer for the future devolution of the CFP.

With enlargement of the EU just around the corner, there is a desperate need to secure a fundamental reform of the CFP as quickly as possible. Countries like Poland and Estonia will become full members of the EU within the next five years. Both have extensive fishing fleets. The Polish fishing industry employs around 40,000 people. Their fleet of 423 cutters and 36 factory trawlers, is already over 35 years old. The Poles would dearly love to take full advantage of current EU scrap and build programmes, cutting down the size of their fleet, and replacing older vessels with state-of-the-art modern killing machines that can hoover up vast quantities of fish.

Fishermen in the Northern Isles remember Lerwick Harbour in Shetland being used as a base by Polish fishing boats, when they fished in the North Sea around 30 years ago. They fear that diminishing stocks of cod, herring and sprats in the Baltic may entice them and other central and east European nations back to the North Sea again. But this time they will be in a fully modernised fleet, paid for by EU taxpayers.

Fishing is a major industry in the UK. It employs over 18,000 people directly and supports fragile economies in many peripheral and remote rural communities. It is of vital importance that UK Conservatives evolve a policy that not only sustains the industry and secures its future, but also recognises the practicalities of CFP reform policy options. The UK fishing industry is far too important to be turned into a political football. The CFP is crying out for reform. The EU fishery is far too large. It should be de-centralised to manageable units. However, management policy must involve the fishermen themselves. They will respect their own policies more than hand-downs from Brussels or Westminster. Local people must take local decisions.