|
Westcountry sole fishermen are only the latest to be hit by the discredited
quota system, as London Editor Jason Groves reports
Quotas lie at the heart of the European Common Fisheries Policy - and
are widely blamed for its most damaging effects.QUOTAS lie at the heart
of the European Common Fisheries Policy - and are widely blamed for its
most damaging effects.
The quota system in its current form dates back to the early 1980s when
it was seen as a convenient way of dividing up Europe's fishing resources
in a way that would limit the overall catch and help conserve stocks.
Twenty years on there are few who would argue that it has been a success.
Convenient it may be, but Europe now has far fewer fishermen and its waters
have far fewer fish.
It's not hard to see why. In a mixed fishery like the waters around the
Westcountry, fishermen looking for one species will almost inevitably
haul up others at the same time. European rules dictate that they have
to throw back any for which they do not have a quota, even though they
may be dead or dying.
Confronted by this waste it is hardly surprising that some have turned
a blind eye to the law and tried to land at least some of those fish.
Europe's answer is to tighten the quotas even further - leading to even
more "discards" and even lower incomes for struggling fishermen.
The system hasn't even been effective in guaranteeing member states their
national share - with Spanish "quota-hoppers" proving particularly
successful at buying up British quota.
The Westcountry sole fishermen struggling today are just the latest victims
of the system. Fisheries ministers converge in Brussels each year to bash
out the details of the next year's quota system and this time around sole
catches were singled out for cuts.
In the Western Channel the UK's quota was slashed by a quarter - a smaller
cut than the Commission wanted, but far higher than local fishermen thought
was justified.
Quotas are supposedly based on scientific evidence, but fishermen have
long argued that the science bears little relation to reality at sea.
Speaking to the WMN in December the Fisheries Minister Ben Bradshaw acknowledged
that quotas were an "imperfect" way of managing fish stocks,
but he insisted they were better than nothing. He would not be drawn on
his preferred system of fisheries management - that will come in an overdue
Downing Street report that is finally due out next month - but he pointed
out that the Commission now believed that "effort control",
such as limits on the days a fisherman spends at sea, might be "better
and more enforceable". Days at sea would help solve the discards
problem. The trouble is that, at the moment, fishermen are increasingly
being asked to cope with both effort limitation and quotas - and most
say that is not financially sustainable.
Michael Howard has no such reservations about the way forward. The Tory
leader surprised some this month when he backed his predecessor's policy
of pulling out of the CFP.
Mr Howard was outspoken on the policy's "failure" and adamant
that the UK could do better by itself, saying: "The CFP has led simultaneously
to the dwindling of fish stocks and the near-destruction of the British
fishing industry. Its quota system encourages the dumping of dead catches
over the side of boats. Its rules have turned good men into liars.
"There is no reason why fishing grounds could not be administered
at national level."
To this end Mr Howard has ordered a study of fishing systems used around
the world in a bid to find a credible replacement for the CFP. But critics
accuse Mr Howard of perpetrating a "cruel hoax" on Britain's
fishermen. Pulling out of the CFP would require major changes to EU treaties,
which would, in turn, require the UK to make concessions to other member
states in other policy areas. The question is how much is Mr Howard prepared
to sacrifice to give British fishermen a brighter future.
article copyright © WESTERN MORNING NEWS
 |
