In a typically flamboyant gimmick in a campaign speech, Boris\nJohnson waved a smoked kipper and an icepack, claiming that the EU imposed\nbureaucratic regulations that required such packaging, and that Brexit would\nenable Britain to do away with such nonsense. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was a lie. Packaging rules are solely a matter for\nnational governments, and the Conservatives, which he had supported\nconsistently, had done nothing over nine years in government to change them. It\nis far from the only lie that has been told about fishery policy by those\nsupporting Brexit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is well known that fishing communities voted\noverwhelmingly for Brexit, and that the Conservatives won seats in fishing\nareas of Scotland in 2017 because they were seen as the party of Brexit. The\nConservatives are pitching the same line again. In response to a planted\nquestion in the House of Commons just before the General Election was called, asking\nfor a \u2018categorical assurance\u2019<\/em> that the UK \u2018will not use our fish\nstocks as a bargaining chip in future negotiations\u2019,<\/em> Boris Johnson\nasserted, \u2018I can confirm that we will take back 100% control of the\nspectacular marine wealth of this country.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the Conservative Party\nmanifesto for the General Election it is repeated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Upon\nleaving the EU, we will leave the Common Fisheries Policy becoming an\nindependent coastal state and taking back control of our waters;<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n You cannot take back\ncontrol of something you have always controlled. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Leaders of the fishery industry, who mainly represent the big\ntrawlers not the small-scale fisheries, have long condemned the EU\u2019s Common\nFisheries Policy (CFP) for the industry\u2019s woes, which include the collapse of\ncod and haddock stocks and depletion of many other species. Fishing and fish\nare emotive subjects in Britain, and even though those involved in fisheries\ncomprise a tiny share of the labour force, they figure high in people\u2019s\nimagination. So, the facts should matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first fact is that the crisis has little to do with the\nCFP. Catches in UK waters have declined by over 94% in the past 130 years, and\nthe decline long predated Britain joining the CFP. The CFP has at least slowed\ndown the depletion of stocks, through its \u2018total allowable catch\u2019 rule. The\nUK\u2019s fishing industry as a whole has been making big profits (a gross profit of\nover 30% in some years). The trouble is that only a few large-scale fishers\nhave been making most of that, for reasons that will become clear later in this\npiece. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, Britain has done well out of the CFP\u2019s system. Of the six million tonnes of fish landed by EU countries, Britain is the second largest, with 700,000 tonnes from UK waters, with a further 52,000 tonnes from other EU waters. Brexiteers complain that the UK has received too little of the TAC. But the industry suffers from overfishing. If Brexit occurs, no sensible government would increase the TAC. If they did, they would be indicating they are in the thrall of the large-scale fisheries that gain from overfishing, through higher prices and consolidation of control, as marginal fisheries are driven into bankruptcy or decommissioning of boats. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So, the question voters should ask candidates is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Would they impose more restrictions on EU fishing in UK\nwaters, bearing in mind that this would lead to retaliation and the likelihood\nof rising tariffs that would hit the UK shellfish sector particularly hard? <\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Third, Britain imports from the EU almost as much fish as it\nexports to it, and relies on the EU market. Many observers present an image of\nBritish fisheries as based on cod and haddock. This is not the case; most of\nthese iconic fish consumed in the UK are imported, and are classified as having\nunsustainable stocks in the North Sea. Meanwhile, the mainstay of UK\u2019s\nfisheries is shellfish, which comprise the main source of exports, most going to\nthe EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fourth, Britain receives considerable subsidies from the CFP,\nand provides its fisheries with more than most other EU countries; it could\nhave handed out even more, although that would be unwise. The point is that it\nis Westminster that determines the amount and type of subsidies. Blaming the\nCFP is invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EU\u2019s CFP has allocated the UK \u00a3243 million in fishing\nsubsidies between 2014 and 2020. One would like to know from the parties\nwhether that money will be replaced after Brexit. This economist, for one,\npredicts the fishing communities will not receive anything like that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So, the questions voters should ask the politicians are as\nfollows: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Would they implement a \u2018total allowable catch\u2019 policy?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n If so, would it be larger or smaller than the existing TAC\nunder EU rules, and would they insist on having a social manager (government\nappointee) to enforce the rules, someone independent of fishery owners?[i]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, only the Green Party has a clear stance on fishing\nsubsidies. As in the 2017 General Election, they are resolutely opposed to them.\nEvidence from around the world indicates that is roughly correct, if the\ncollapse of fish stocks is to be avoided. The main exceptions are \u2018research\u2019\nand \u2018General Service and Management\u2019 subsidies, which have beneficial effects\nif proper management rules are applied with adequate resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Labour Party manifesto includes a mildly promising\ncommitment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n We will set maximum sustainable yields for all shared fish\nstocks, redistribute fish quotas along social and environmental criteria and,\nif people vote to leave the EU, require the majority of fish caught under a UK\nquota to be landed in UK ports.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Conservative Party manifesto includes a similar statement\non maximum sustainable yields:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There will be a legal commitment to fish sustainably and a legal requirement for a plan to achieve maximum sustainable yield for each stock.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It also states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\nwill maintain funding for fisheries across the UK\u2019s nations throughout the\nParliament and support the regeneration of our coastal communities;<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Conservatives say nothing about the level of funding, and fail to mention the need to cover for the lost income from the CFP subsidies. If they were intending to continue the \u00a3243 million gained through the CFP, that should have been in their Manifesto\u2019s Costing document. But there is no mention of anything.\u00a0There is no need for a statement in the Labour, Green or Liberal Democrat manifestos, since none of them plan on a certain Brexit. But any party promising Brexit should be required to say whether they would replace CFP subsidies fully or partially.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then we come to the policy on which the most lies have been\nperpetrated. The CFP operates what is called a fixed quota system<\/em>. Guided\nby scientific advice, ministers in charge of fishery policy of member states\nmeet each year to decide on the \u2018total allowable catch\u2019 of major fish species,\nand then agree on quotas for each member state on a formula based on past\npractices and catches of those species. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One lie told by Brexiteers is that the CFP allocates the quotas. But the distribution is left entirely to national governments. Here is where the scandal begins. Under the Conservatives, over two-thirds of quotas have been given to just 25 companies, dubbed the \u2018codfathers\u2019 by Greenpeace, while under 2% has gone to small-scale fishers, even though they make up 79% of the fishing fleet. Worse, over a quarter (29%) have been quietly handed to just five families on the Sunday Times Rich List<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Even worse, 13 of the 25 companies that were given most of\nthe quotas had directors or vessel partners convicted in an over-fishing scam\nin 2011-12 in Scotland. This is known as the \u2018black fish\u2019 scam. The companies\nclandestinely landed 170,000 tonnes of undeclared herring and mackerel, worth\n\u00a363 million. Leaders in the fishing industry who claim that it can\nself-regulate should be reminded of that scam. Sadly, it did not stop the\nperpetrators continuing to receive the Government\u2019s very large quotas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats after 2010 and the\nConservatives since 2015, have compounded the disastrous policy by continuing\nto allow quotas to be tradeable, as commodities, in spite of predictable and\nlong-established consequences. The big companies have been buying quotas from\nsmaller firms, and foreign firms have bought \u2018British\u2019 quotas by registering\ntheir boats in the UK, a trend dubbed \u2018quota hoppng\u2019. If you believe in the\nsupremacy of private property rights and turn quotas into private property, do\nnot be surprised at this outcome. There has been increasing monopolisation,\nassociated with more intensive rentier capitalism in the industry, and\nself-induced colonisation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The latter has been dramatic. One Dutch multinational, with a\nBritish subsidiary North Atlantic Fishing Company, owning a 114-metre long\nflagship fishing trawler, now possesses about a quarter of all the UK quota. With\nother \u2018quota hoppers\u2019 coming from Spain, Iceland and The Netherlands, foreign-owned\nboats now hold about half the UK\u2019s quotas. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The quota system has produced several ironies. In an\norchestrated event that may have tipped the balance in favour of Brexit, in\n2016 a flotilla of fishing boats went up the Thames. Nigel Farage was on the\nflagship, i.e., a foreign owned boat flying the UK flag. It belonged to one of\nthe ten largest quota holders. The motto of the campaign was \u2018Bring back control<\/em>.\u2019\nOne could be confident in thinking that the flagship would be a primary\nbeneficiary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, the Government\u2019s White Paper on fishery policies post-Brexit,\npublished in 2019, stated that there would be no change<\/em> in the quota\ndistribution after Brexit. That surely reflects the power structure in the\nfishing industry and the ideology of private property rights. Put bluntly, if\nthe Conservatives are elected they have committed to channelling more rights\nand money to the codfathers and quota-hoppers, and practically nothing to\nsmall-scale fisheries, the latter should not complain if they vote Conservative\nand that is what happens. In the circumstances, every voter concerned with\nfisheries should ask all candidates the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do you agree with the Conservatives\u2019 White Paper statement,\n\u2018We do not intend to change the method for allocating existing quota.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In a related policy, the government has claimed it wishes to\nsupport \u2018discard-free fisheries\u2019. This is significant because of the quota\nsystem. It has been common for fishers worried about exceeding their quotas to\ndiscard fish caught that are less valuable, notably juveniles and species not\nvalued much in the UK. This has been a cause of declining fish stocks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If there is a market for species not valued by UK consumers\nbut valued in the EU, the tendency to discard good edible fish is held in\ncheck. But if the UK is cut off from the EU market, discarding will grow. The\ngovernment and industry representatives may huff and puff and say that will be\ncontrolled. The reality is that, whereas with the CFP there is an EU-level\ninspection system, the UK has only 12 vessels for monitoring fishing practices\nfor all UK waters up to 200 nautical miles from its coasts. Research has shown\nthat without strong regulation through diligent monitoring, a quota system, as\noperating in the UK, will lead to rapid fish stock depletion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, voters in fishing communities should ask candidates what\npolicy would they favour to minimise discard practice and whether that would be\nas good as exists in the EU today.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Confusion in the Conservative leadership has been intensified\nby the statement of Minister in charge of fishery policy, Michael Gove, that\nthe UK would also leave the London Fisheries Convention of 1964, which predates\nthe EU, and which allows vessels from the UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Ireland\nand the Netherlands to fish within six and twelve miles of each other\u2019s\ncoastline. He then admitted that British fisheries did not have the capacity to\ntake over and so EU nations would continue to have access to UK waters. To talk\ngrandiosely about \u2018regaining sovereignty\u2019 in such circumstances is ludicrous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Voters in fishing communities should demand that Conservative\ncandidates explain how claims of 100% sovereignty can be credible in view of\nthose statements by their responsible minister. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n There is one devastating point. International research has shown that the full privatisation of fisheries, as wanted by the Conservatives and the Brexit Party, can drive fish stocks down to extinction. Welcome to full sovereignty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, if Brexit occurs, the part of the UK that would benefit most in terms of fisheries is Scotland, but only if it had jurisdiction over its fisheries. Thus, post-Brexit fishery policy may push Scotland to want to leave the UK, something many Brexiteers may not have factored into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Photo credit: Flickr\/Chris Bentley<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n