The European Commission has finally admitted that the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy has failed.
After over three decades of mismanagement a completely new fisheries policy is needed – but don’t hold your breath.
Despite, or more accurately because of, the CFP, 88 per cent of European fish stocks are over-fished, compared to 25 per cent elsewhere in the world.
Almost a third – 30 per cent – of Europe’s managed fisheries are “outside safe biological limits, they cannot reproduce at normal because the parenting population is too depleted”, said a Brussels policy paper out on Wednesday.
“Yet in many fisheries we are fishing two or three more times more than what fish stocks can sustain.”
There is a human cost for this policy failure for hundreds of thousands of European fishermen (280,000 of them), the British whitefish fishing fleet (for example) has been cut 60 per cent.
It seems for nothing.
Fishermen and women are faced with a system that treats them as hostiles and has the added downside of not working.
Last July, I spoke to some of the Irish fishermen at the sharp edge of this failure. Fine people, whose tragic story is a truly European one echoed along the coastlines of Scotland, Spain, France and elsewhere.
People like Cliona Conneely (above) have been criminalised for sticking up for themselves and their interests – read more.
As I argued, her expertise and commitment, like that of people in many other walks of life, was overridden by the technocrats and “experts” who impose the “we know best” rules and procedures of officialdom.
But the problem with the CFP is that it is a product of a complex, hidden world of bureaucratic deal-making between EU and national officials. It is not enlightened administration.
Quotas are not set around industry needs, or scientific advice on fish stock conservation, but on trade offs between officials – sometimes on utterly unrelated issues.
Fishing quotas are not allocated on equitable or conservation criteria but on the grounds of contingency for the technocrats, who tell us “they know best” on such complex tans-territorial issues.
Countries like Ireland and the UK, with large coastlines and a fishing industry, lost out as part of their respective late EU membership deals, when civil servants in London and Dublin decided that the industry was worth sacrificing as part of the price to join.
Ireland used to point to its economic growth rates to sustain this argument – which is a brutal, but a valid one, a pity it was not had more openly and publicly at the time (in Britain too).
The CFP is run for the administrative convenience of national and EU officials who use fishing industries as chips in negotiations.
As the Commission has now admitted, this has been a disaster.
Like so much of the EU, the CFP has been more about convenience for officials, inspectors and administrative experts (bean counters) than anything or anyone else.
It is not surprising that European fishermen have become territorial about their waters and sometimes blinded to their industry’s wider interest when the CFP has so often been pitted against them.
I personally have no disagreement with the idea of planning across Europe’s waters, seems like a rational idea to me, but such an economic policy has to be rooted in open, honest, public political debate and democratic consent.
It also has to be about the industry – including, of course, the need to preserve fish stocks – not bureaucratic trade offs, often bringing entirely unrelated side deals on CAP and structural funds into the picture. Read more>>
#1 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on April 23, 2009 - 11:34 am
Dear Sir,
It is easy to blame Commission officials, but don’t you think the chips and haggling you are mentioning are more to blame on the member states themselves? You mentioned yourself that Ireland and the UK sacrificed fisheries to get something else. I agree, but don’t you think one should rather blame Ireland and the UK for doing so, rather than the Commission for failing to resist them (or their other counterparts)? It is a bit easy to shoot at the sitting duck. The Commission, as you well know, has little power against member states and, if “technocrats” were more listened to instead of being used and abused (as scape goats), the disaster might not even have occurred.
#2 by Golodh on April 24, 2009 - 11:48 pm
It’s good to clearly separate two issues: whether fishing quota are necessary and sufficient measures to let fish stock recover and whether the right quota are set.
It is beyond doubt that the only way to replenish fish stocks is to reduce fishing them. In other words: stringent quota. No matter the rethoric about “fine people”, “treated like hostiles”, and “personal cost”.
For two simple reasons.
First of all, fishermen as a group cannot be trusted with the task of keeping fish stocks at sustainable levels. Even if they know constitutes a sustainable level of fishing, the prisoner’s dilemma of “If I don’t catch these fish someone else will do it” will prevent them from acting. History has shown that although a majority of fishermen may abide by quota, there are enough who do not to make any self-regulation utterly impossible. Therefore any measures must be imposed, and fishermen must have no way of hiding non-compliance. In short: quota and strict controls.
Secondly, any costs currently associated with fishing quota will be incurred in a much more severe form if fish stocks fail altogether, which is now a realistic perspective.
For these reasons it makes no sense whatsoever to give “the industry” a say in the matter, and even less sense to cast about for “quota the industry needs”. The quota aren’t there to please the industry, they are there to prevent fish stocks being depleted.
The only remedy is to determine a conservative set of scientific best-estimate quota (you won’t be able to do better than that) which will allow fish stock to recover, and then to impose those quota on the fishing industry no matter what. Even if it means e.g. imposing a 3-5 year moratorium on fishing, or cutting the fishery fleet to 20% of what it is now and making the remainder of the fishermen redundant. Regardless of any blackmail attempts by fishermen making a nuisance of themselves by blockading this or that.
Which brings us to the crucial point: in the current political constellation it is absolutely impossible to impose scientifically estimated quota EU-wide. As Mr. Waterfeld notes, it might be if member states weren’t so engaged in horse-trading all the time. Funnily enough this is what would happen if the Commission were in a position to impose fishing quota without the need to obtain consensus amongst all member states. Something the Lisbon treaty could have provided.
The *only* reason EU policies have not worked is the political impossibility of imposing quota aimed at replenishing fish stock.
Rhetoric about the big bad EU’s policy failure is not helpful. If anything, the author shows that only a transfer of more power to Brussels (and specifically the removal of national veto powers in this issue) can resolve this conundrum.
#3 by Anne Palmer on April 25, 2009 - 1:06 pm
The EU’s Common Fishing Policy has failed, the Commissioner has said so himself. They have had since 1972/3 as far as the UK is concerned to ‘get it right’, they have failed. So, the answer according to the Commission is to bring in more paper-work, more regulation, fewer fishing men/women and fewer fishing boats. Try looking at this short video if you do not believe me re more regulation.
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control_enforcement/reform_control_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/video/PEC009MA01EN_SHORT_high_en.wmv
Control Enforcement alright and if the UK remains in the EU it deserves all it gets, but I hope our MP’s do not think we can continue to pay them just to sit on Green Benches and play at ‘pretendy’ Governing.
From the EU’s Paper it says, “Under the Lisbon Treaty, the co-decision procedure (under which the Council and the European Parliament take decisions together) would apply to all fisheries decisions apart from establishing yearly fishing opportunities. This makes it all the more necessary to re-evaluate the current approach on micro-management at the highest political level and bring decision-making under the CFP in line with all other EU policies i.e. a clear hierarchy between fundamental principles and technical implementation”.
I look at the million tons of fish that have been thrown back into the sea DEAD. It is, I would suggest an environmental crime, a disgrace, yet only those bringing home to save ‘wasting’ have been prosecuted. If WE leave a bin lid up a little too far we are prosecuted, so why hasn’t this Government prosecuted the EU over the devastation of our Territorial fishing Grounds?
Ah, are they our fishing grounds? Now here is the rub, have we under the Treaties loaned them? Shared them? Allowed the EU to ‘govern’ them, or have we actually GIVEN them away for ever? Definitely NO to that because they are treaties after all, aren’t they? The EU call them EU waters and EU Fishing Policy etc, but as far as the United Nations is concerned and the maps, they are still the UK’s territorial waters. It is time we had the Governing of them back too.
Golodh says “fishermen as a group cannot be trusted with the task of keeping fish stocks at sustainable levels”, Well for many, many years before the EU they did that very well indeed. It is the EU’s fishing policy that has destroyed our fishing grounds with such waste which has been going on for years and will still do so in the future.
From the questions I have asked, you may note that I trust the fishermen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain far more that those that instigate new legislation that we have to obey and those that transpose it into our system.
The fish that swim in the sea have more freedom that those that try to catch them.
#4 by bert on April 27, 2009 - 12:32 pm
being dutch and canadian, I live in Calpe, Alicante, Spain
Living close to the harbor, I see many days many cooling cars, white painted, no letters, picking up fish without using the market. i have mentioned this a couple of times to Brussels and what, never received an answer.Wish they would care.
Note. Mismanagement is the order. I will NOT vote for the EU election among many other friends, and costing so much Strassburg should go. Brussel should be enough. We could use that overspending for many other reasons.
We are all trying to live, but Brussel does what they want. Not fair to society especially now.
Hope to receive an answer.
thx for getting me in this discussion.
#5 by John Bull on April 27, 2009 - 5:01 pm
I think you will find a lot of EU directives and policies will prove to be heavily flawed. Politicians hate listening to experts and so make their own decisions. Hence the mess with fish. The EU is not in the least concerned with the people of the member countries, the EU is about power, influence and money – and little else.
#6 by Anne Palmer on April 27, 2009 - 5:21 pm
If you want to make up for the vote on Lisbon you were denied Bert, then vote in the EU Parliament election and for a Eurosceptic, or pro-national Party. Use your vote as if it is Compulsory and get all your friends to do the same. Even the balance in the EU parliament. I have never voted in an EU election before and I do not belong to any political party-never have and never will- But I will vote this time in the hope that we can fill that Parliament with people that prefer self government and eventually will work to regain their sovereign right to actually govern their own people once again.
The EU inspite of bringing out laws for every little thing we do, cannot work and never will, without the people behind them. The people are not behind them and never will be without listening to them. Each Country should withdraw Lisbon before all 27 States ratify it, and it should be put to the people in every separate Country that has the misfortune to be trapped for the moment in the EU.
#7 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on April 28, 2009 - 10:33 am
Well, as you all know, membership in the EU is not compulsory. Any member state can withdraw at any time. It only needs a majority of its citizens to say “goodbye”. If UK citizens (are you clearly all seem to be) don’t want to be in the EU, please, by all means, leave us ! For what we Europeans are concerned, we could go a lot further, faster and better, without the UK, and especially its Sunday “press”, always bickering and lying about the EU to hide their own failures… If you don’t like us, we don’t really need you either.
#8 by Anne Palmer on April 28, 2009 - 12:15 pm
Ah Jean-Baptiste Perrin, that is just it, the people are ignored here in the UK just as the people are ignored in the rest of the EU. Many, many people throughout the EU wanted a ‘say’ on the Treaty of Lisbon, but after the demise of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe because the people of two Countries said “NO”, the EU decided to ignore those too. The people of Ireland have also been ignored, and as I understand it, most are not too happy about that either.
I only read one Sunday papers and it is usually not far off the mark. I however, get my information from the EU debates and our own House of Commons debates.
Many of us used to come to the continent of Europe for our holidays, sadly we probably cannot afford to at the moment. I liked it and the people so much I even enjoyed learning a few or your languages. so, here just for you:
Esté nueva idioma, no es crazy,
Pero it can make unas personas trés lazy,
No necesitar to learn eleven idiomas,
For al final cette course, no hay diplomas.
C’est trés facile than “Old English Pigion”,
Per favore-grazie, you learn just a smidgen,
Straight up mate, vous ne regrettez pas,
Just cheek, sommi Old Greek, you understand JA?
Was darf es sein more than anything now?
For c’est un morçeau de gateau, mein Frau,
C’est wild, to learn impotante Europese,
Just mix up todo este idiomas avec mucho ease.
Beware though, personas in Brussels just might,
Qué commencer as a joke, may be taken as right,
Si Europanto catches on, c’est vraiment to relate,
Mucho interpreters will meet a very sad fate.
Goodbye, Arrivederci, Gia sas, Hasta Luego, Adjö, Näkemiin,
Farvel, Dag, Au revior, Até logo, and Auf Wiedersehen,
N’est pas vraiment, C’est un horreur,
Arrividerci———————until tomorreur!!!!
#9 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on April 28, 2009 - 2:19 pm
Dear Anne Palmer,
I can see that you took my pique with the humour it deserved.
So let’s go back to serious discussion first. I am, I believe like you are, a fervent democrat. I am absolutely in favour of giving as much say as humanly possible to citizens in terms of choosing their representatives to any political function. And, in terms of the EU (which I also defend), I think it should be as democratic as possible, and if possible more than its own member states.
This said, I am sadly aware of the level of information distilled within said member states about what happens in Brussels (which is hugely approximated, in the best cases). And I a also aware that any referendum in several EU countries about an improvement in democratic decision would always meet the same answer: no. Not because people don’t like democracy, but because people (and shameless political parties too) usually make use of referendums to settle scores with their national government. In other words, they don’t answer the question.
I know, of course, the argument against this: why don’t we just put the question in just the simplest terms possible and give it a try? Well, just like many people, I’d love this to happen. But I have absolutely no trust into our national governments to make it happen. They are too afraid of losing some power…
#10 by bert on April 28, 2009 - 3:49 pm
Hi Anne palmer,
Received a note from EU-Spain, although in my town of calpe and another 16 Towns in Alicante, the majority of inhabitants is over 60% foreign, like English, Dutch, German,Belgian and others, yet I received the information in Spanish and the local dialect version they call official language.
it seems Spain does not care, although they still receive Milliards of € and neither does Brussels care.
So I am not motivated to vote, it is a joke and not worth the stamp.
Let them get organized, get rid of Strassburg, while we need the money as we had to cut our expenses, so should the EU.
#11 by Anne Palmer on April 28, 2009 - 5:41 pm
Hi again Jean-Baptiste Perin, I very much agree with your second paragraph. I find that we, here in the UK are mostly the “odd one out” when it comes to EU Legislation because our laws are so different from most on the continent. We have always been able to do anything we want unless there is a law against it, (also innocent until proven guilty-where as the opposite seems to apply on the continent) on the continent you may only do what the law permits you to do, and there is a great difference between the two.
Right from the very beginning the people in this Country were told lies, and this was admitted on one television programme by one very eminent man. In the only referendum the people have had on the EU, the people were asked (1975) whether they wanted to remain in the Common Market. they were told that it was mostly for trade and that “there would be no loss of essential sovereignty”. No internet in those days and we believed what those MP’s of the day-names we all knew so well-told us. Why should we question them? We believed them. Year by year we have watched while sovereignty (The authority required to ‘make things happen lawfully) was transferred to the European Union and to bodies we had not elected.
Since then I have done a lot of research, and no, I too did not use my vote in the EU Parliament Bert. Bad mistake of mine, I will not make the same mistake again.
Here is a little of that research, the latter is not-to the best of my knowledge on the Internet.
In in the European Parliament 14.2.1984 a Mr Faure said, “As the currency is the essential fuel of the economy, so a nuclear strike force is the supreme guarantee of security. A proper European defence entity should have a singe decision-maker for this ultimate weapon, in other words a President of the United States of Europe. (If Lisbon come in-this will happen) It is unthinkable that control over nuclear weapons should be shared among twelve countries and entrusted to twelve key-holders. It is no less unthinkable that the countries which are most advanced in those technologies, of which my own country is one, should jealously guard a monopoly of them, thereby arrogating to themselves a suzerainty totally out of keeping with the spirit of a community of free and fraternal peoples: fratres consanguinei.
One of the Founders of the European Comunity, Jean Monnet piped him to the post when he spoke to the European Congress of the Social-Democratic Party on 25th Feb 1964, for he too wanted control of Nuclear Mediums as he called it. “La situation sera fondamentalement modifiée lorsque nos pays aurant créé une autorité commune capable d’administrer et de contrôler des moyens nucléaires”.
We were not being told the truth then in the 1970′s, and we are not being told the truth now.
Questions are being asked about the European Union Rapid Reaction Force-being denied there is one. Certainly I agree there is no STANDING ERRF.
The EU Battlegroup Concept (EUBGC) subsequently has been complemented by the Maritime Rapid Response Concept (MarRRC) and the Air Rapid Response Concept (AirRRC) (Ref.H). Together these three subordinate concepts have generated a range of requirements and principles that have informed this review of the EU Military Rapid Response Concept (MRRC). The requirement for a Land Rapid Response Concept has yet to be defined. (Taken from the Council of the European Union subject EU Military Rapid Response Concept. Dated 23rd January 2009. Who pays for these secondments I wonder?
There may be no EU STANDING Army but there are many, many EU directives and instructions that refer/apply to this no STANDING army. There may be no EU STANDING Navy but the EU Navy has already set sail and is on duty re Somalia for twelve months. Look at this EU Directive and see what you think about that. Official Journal of Journal of the European Union C 321/6. 31/12 2003
http://www.army.cz/images/id_8001_9000/8438/023.pdf
#12 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on April 29, 2009 - 9:58 am
Dear Anne,
While I understand your feelings, I must disagree with the interpretation of the facts.
First, a small correction, if you don’t mind, about the judicial system. It is a common mistake in the UK (propagated by the same “press” I was mentioning earlier), to believe that, on the continent, one might be considered guilty until proven innocent. I can reassure you that most (if not all) continental legal systems defend and enforce the fact that anyone is considered innocent unless proven guilty. The French system, for instance, goes to great length in this matter, forbidding even to call someone a “suspect”. The Dutch system forbids media even to name people who are being charged with a criminal offence.
Secondly, and until such changes are agreed on democratically, one can hardly say that essential sovereignty has been taken away from the people of the UK (or whichever European nation for that matter). There is indeed a “Common Defence and Military Policy” in the EU. However, this aspect of the EU is subject to unanimity decisions by member states as well as their veto rights. The UK has, additionally, opt out rights in several such fields.
Last but not least, even in cases where power has indeed been transferred to supra-national level, one could argue that this has also been accompanied by a transfer in the way sovereignty is exercised. UK citizens can vote to elect MEP’s to exert this supra-national sovereignty. They are represented in the EU Council by their elected Prime Minister too. The only point where I will rejoin you, is to say that this is not enough and that there should be more democratic control on the EU Commission (currently unelected but named and approved by elected bodies) and the EU Council. This is the reason someone like you should be in favour of the Lisbon treaty which reinforces the democratic control and enshrines also the possibility for a member state to actually leave the EU.
#13 by Anne Palmer on April 29, 2009 - 7:11 pm
I am delighted to read I am wrong re the Justice system in some Countries. (I did not get those from the press so mentioned though). I am however, very much aware of our own Justice system and Constitution both of which are being ignored at the moment. We were very much alarmed at the “‘plane spotters’ case though.
As regards the ESDP, perhaps you have not had sight of the recent “AGREEMENT” put forward by the EU although we are rather moving away from the “Fishing”
First came the realisation to me, because there has been nothing about this in the papers, that an Agreement/Treaty had been already signed.
“Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context (EU SOFA) Brussels, 17 November 2003”. Which had been presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, March 2009.
To check on that, I went looking for an EU Directive or confirmation of the “Agreement” that I was sure must be there somewhere, and yes, there it was in all its glory in the Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003. I would suggest the whole of Article 17 mentioned is applicable anyway because Maastricht was indeed ratified.
Parts of Article 17 Treaty on union here for you
,
1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.
As regards essential sovereignty. Has any sovereignty been returned? As the EU is planning for the next 50 years, it kind of makes that ‘lending’ of sovereignty permanent.
Someone like me, and there are lot of people like me about, believe me, I am not unique and I am not on my own, they elect their own Governments to govern, not just to obey orders by foreigners in Brussels that we do not elect. Their patience is beginning to wear thin.
#14 by Wim Roffel on May 11, 2009 - 11:30 am
I would favor a fishing quota system where each country sets the quota for its fishing zone and gets the responsibility to enforce it. In return it should get an above average share in the local quota.
The present system where the country of those who take extra fish is responsible for enforcing the quota is an invitation for fraud.
#15 by Julien on May 11, 2009 - 10:44 pm
yes Anne. This is a TERRIBLE probleme. As I always say, if the constituents are not democratic enough, why we should expect the EU sto be more democratic? That’s why we all have to get involved, and I think I agree with you, the primary place to get involved is our own countries. If we somehow manage to make them more democratic, the EU will become more democratic by definition.
As for the British, I like them and I’d love them to stay, but if they feel the way it seems they do, yes their goverment should listen and take them out, maybe become an EFTA member.
And the rest of us we’ll do our best for a more democratic and humane EU.
#16 by Julien on May 11, 2009 - 10:46 pm
yeap, seems reasonable.
#17 by Res Publica on May 27, 2009 - 6:11 am
Reading Anne Palmer, above, would lead an unsuspecting European to believe that Britain is a Nation.
Well it isn’t.
And reading Anne Palmer, above, misleads the unsuspecting reader to assume that her Nation, the English, have deep moral scruples about Sovereignty.
So to set these matters in a clearer light let us reflect upon England’s rape and extortion of its neighbors; Ireland, Wales and Scotland as England offered to her neighbors the option to join HER Union or death at the point of a lance or bayonet.
So tears for Sovereignty from an Englander seem a little odd! when they themselves have almost annihilated the Irish nation – England today still carries on an illegal military domination and occupation of part of the Island of Ireland just like Turkey does in Cyprus – reducing her population to almost nothing in 700 years of occupation and plantation, and in robbing that sad land of its language, its vast oak forests and whatever else the thieving Sasneachs could steal.
The history of Wales is not much different, and the English ‘took’ Scotland for all it had for a sack of horse shit and few gold coins paid to the treacherous to do the dirty work upon their own.
So when I read read an English cry about Sovereignty I begin to wonder who’s property they are setting their sights upon?
Could it be Spain? or Greece? or some other warm weather destination that they now covet having laid waste all of Britain except their own bit of it?
#18 by Anne Palmer on August 2, 2009 - 6:28 pm
Wow Res Publica! What an ourburst! Do you really think I have been writing words like these to “an unsuspecting European”? I have been writing to those far better educated than myself, or at least I believe them to be. I know that from the way they write. What our Country is NOW, today Res Publica is nothing like it was even through the last war when each and everyone of us here in the United Kingdom of Great Britian fought (and died) together to prevent foreigners from governing this Nation. Yes, we were one. But the EU means to divide to rule. It may seem to strangers that this is so now, but come trouble and we are one again just like a family.
Much of this is by following EU orders because weak men at one time ratified Treaties, and as I have already stated, they were so weak, they did not even have the GUTS to tell the people exactly what they had signed -in our name. They had to tell lies and there was no internet at that time to check up on that score then, but when they tell the people that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rrights is like the Beano Comic, even you might get a little bothered by what people are being told. Even now they deny what they have done.
As yet the people are not crying about “sovereignty” as you put it. we are fighting to keep it and get back the sovereignty that is on loan or ‘shared’ (as we were told) to or by the EU. And do you know what Res Publica, we will indeed get our sovereignty back, because it is written so. Indeed we will
#19 by GERARD REA on September 12, 2010 - 2:16 pm
Intested info fish fresh