Everyone by now I hope has managed to forget the event that
was the Brexit Flotilla and erase it from their memory. I expect that most were
somewhat moderately to extremely embarrassed, whatever your views, by the
prospect of British politics being defined by a pair of rich eccentrics having
it out across the Thames. I personally had sympathies both ways, I am voting
for remain and so was clearly rolling my eyes when I heard of “our Nige's”
latest stunt, however, like most I have sympathy and respect for British
fishermen and the difficulties they face. We have all been told how
wasteful the common fisheries policy is, how fishing as an industry has been on the decline and how, if we believe our press, foreign ships are taking unfair
catches from British waters.
 |
| Farage and Hoey camping it up on the Thames |
But is this the case? It is a narrative we have all
swallowed and a genuine sympathy and respect I expect we all feel for fishermen. Fishermen work
incredibly hard in an extremely dangerous job. When they are at sea there time
can be sleepless, cold, lonely and away from family and missing out on some of
the most formative parts of their children’s lives. Not just this, but we all
know of how the industry has changed, as the employment share of
fishing has gradually declined. But is the EU to blame?
A look at the decline in employment shows that the number of jobs in fishing had been declining as fishing stocks were also falling, well before the common fisheries policy was implemented. There has been some decline since, but this is not necessarily due to the policy, as other changes have also occurred. As with all industries, overtime productivity increases and the labour intensity also declines.
 |
| Landings by profit |
The aim of the common fisheries policy is to allow fishing stocks to recover. Over-fishing, particularly in the North Sea, has led to a decline in many of the most popular stocks of fish. This is a big problem, acknowledged by most fishermen at the time of the creation of the common fisheries policy. If this had been allowed to continue, it would have led to greater declines of the fishing industry, across all countries using the North Sea, than we have actually seen. Since then many stocks have recovered and quotas, including Britain's, have began to be increased. In addition the practice of dumping when vessels over fish has been reformed.
 |
| Landings by value and weight |
Another important point on this topic, which surprised me, is the advantageous position UK fisheries get vis a vis our neighbours. The quota system was set in relation to the level of national catch taken in the 1970s in order to preserve fishing communities at their then levels. Within this, the UK has the second highest catch of all countries. In addition the UK has the largest profit on its sales of any country and is in the top three for the weight and value of its catch.
Many people are angry about foreign fishing vessels active in British waters, but it is worth considering what action could realistically be taken here. The UK as mentioned gets larger quotas then other countries and also fishes in many other countries waters, as well as selling in their harbours and receiving repairs there. So any ban on other countries could have detrimental consequences for UK fisheries.
 |
| Tonnes of allowed fish by EU member states 2016 |
Of the UK fishing catch £1 billion is exported to other EU countries, particularly Spain and Southern Europe, which lack many of the cold water fish stocks located in our waters. David Cameron has pointed out that no country in the world exports fish into the EU market tariff free, including Norway and Iceland the big bogeymen of British fishing, and so British fishing could be massively hit in the event of a Brexit.
The biggest irony appears to be, particularly for smaller fishing vessels, that it is the UK government which has done the biggest damage to British fishing. A look at the level of quotas given out within the UK shows that the government has continuously given the majority of it's fishing quotas to just 3 companies, with massive effects on the smaller vessels and smaller fishing towns. It is the British governments responsibility, and always has been, to decide how it allocates its quota. It was the British law which allowed the infamous dutch ship the cornelis vrolijk part of the British quota and again, a British government which gave over 60% of the quota to just 3 companies, leaving just 39% for everyone else.....
There clearly are other issues which I am unaware of and would not want to comment on around health and safety and other regulations in the fishing industry. I also think until it was reformed the practice of dumping was still a massive issue, but has since been looked at and has improved. My point being that there are clearly other big issues.
The position of British fishermen in the EU is therefore not as simple as the CODswallop Farage has been spinning. Contrary to what he has been saying about the EU quota system, designed to ensure larger stocks in the future, the UK has a better position then it's competitors; it has larger quotas, catches and profits then other countries. The problem appears to be that the UK government has showed constant and blatant disregard for the industry. They have ignored smaller British vessels and favoured big businesses .Not only this, but the very scare stories blamed on the fisheries policy are actually the UK's fault. It was British law which allowed the infamous dutch vessel to take so much of the British quota and not the common fisheries policy.
Please see below for further reading and refferences on data etc
No comments:
Post a Comment