Having our chips and eating them, by Catherine
Stilher MEP
Most of us may see fish on a plate, maybe with
chips alongside. But have you ever thought about what is involved
in putting the fish on your plate?
Fishing is recognised as one of the most
dangerous of occupations and it is linked with folklore and
identity in many part of the world. The fishing vessel is not the
only part of the equation though, with fish processing frequently
involving the employment of migrant labour, often in either poor or
illegal working conditions. In some parts of the world the
conditions amount to slavery, as has recently been alleged in
southern Thailand. These are extreme conditions but there are many
controversies around fishing.
In June 2006, George Monbiot published an
article in the Guardian titled 'Not Enough Fish in the Sea - We
need omega-3 oils for our brains to function properly. But where
will they come from'. This is the crux of the problem - we are told
to eat fish for the good of our health but there are too many
fishermen pursuing too few fish. In 2003, Ransom Myers and Boris
Worm published a seminal study in Nature, showing that global
stocks of predatory fish have declined by 90%. Other studies
followed, such as that published in Science in 2006, which found
that stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries,
and that there will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas
by the middle of the century if current trends continue. Off the
British coast we face a crisis in stock levels of North Sea cod
despite programmes of quota reduction, fishing ground closures, and
reduced days allowed at sea.
Fish are a common resource and the seas are in
our care for future generations. Within the EU fisheries are
managed via the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). After the Common
Agriculture Policy (CAP), the CFP is perhaps one of the most
heavily vilified aspects of EU policy. It is hard to disagree with
the key findings of a recent House of Lords EU Committee
Report, The Progress of the Common Fisheries Policy.
The report argues that the 2002 reform of the
Common Fisheries Policy has failed and that fleet overcapacity,
poor compliance, uneven enforcement, and stifling bureaucracy all
persist, while fish stocks remain depleted. It blames member state
reluctance to bring the size of their fishing fleets into line with
the available fishing opportunities — or even to allow market
forces to do so. The recommendations include resisting calls for
vessel operating costs subsidies, or for any relaxation of the
state aid regime for this purpose; the creation of attractive
decommissioning schemes and the economic diversification of
fisheries-dependent coastal communities; and creating a devolved
management structure. Strategic decisions should still be
taken centrally in Brussels, but decisions relating to delivery and
implementation should be delegated to regional bodies, subject to
central auditing.
These suggestions would strengthen the way the
CFP works. However, I think that we need a CFP and that we should
reform it from within, rather than falling into the populist trap
of advocating leaving it. In fact, leaving the CFP would mean
leaving the European Union, and leaving the EU would not remove the
need to negotiate with the EU and other international bodies on
fisheries issues, as Norway or Iceland do. The CFP is currently
having a health-check only three years before its next review. It
is clear that fishing presents many challenges and no quick fixes
but for the sake of a sustainable future we must persevere.
