From Cod Wars to mackerel grab
FOUR summers ago I passed a morning in the National Museum of Iceland. One item that caught my interest was a large, odd-looking hunk of iron that resembled a multi-headed gaff or clep crossed with a harpoon.
It was the wire cutter that the Icelanders invented to deploy from their gunboats to cut the warps on British trawl nets during the Cod Wars. The notes with the display said that this was probably the only offensive weapon ever designed in Iceland.
The last Cod War happened in 1976 but sometimes it looks as if a struggle over marine resources is on the horizon again. A year ago fishermen in Peterhead blocked the quays to stop Faroese boats landing catches of mackerel after the Icelandic and Faroese governments had independently set their own quotas for this fish.
I have not heard of anything similar this summer although, in March, our northern island neighbours walked out of the talks with Norway and the EU to ensure a sustainable sharing of the mackerel stock and set their own quotas.
In 2011 the Faroese intend to catch 150,000 tonnes of mackerel – a 75 per cent increase on the 85,000 tonnes limit they set themselves last year and five times more than their share under the last international agreement in 2009.
“This is nothing short of an outrageous mackerel grab by the Faroes, who are determined to seek short-term profit at the expense of the sustainability of the stock, rather than come to a reasonable agreement with the other nations who share the mackerel fishery,” cried Richard Lochhead, our fisheries secretary in Holyrood.
According to the Government, mackerel is the most valuable stock that Scottish boats at present fish for, a catch worth £135 million in 2009 and directly supporting around 2500 jobs.
It is ironic to think how we used to scorn to eat mackerel although, in the 1960s, we hooked it by the boxful in Sinclair’s Bay for creel bait when skate gumps were not available. I did not find out how delicious and nutritious it is until I lived in London and came on the smoked variety.
RICHARD Lochhead, MSP for Moray, has been having a busy few weeks, as the man at the eye of the storm over the vexed questions surrounding fisheries conservation.
At the same time as north-east fishermen were striving to keep Faroese boats from landing, Andrew Charles, the owner of a seafood business in Torry, protested that firms such as his depended on Icelandic and Faroese fish to keep the factory lines busy and the supermarket shelves stocked.
Readers may also recall that the Scottish blockade brought praise from Brussels for our fishermen. Such unaccustomed plaudits must have come as a big surprise to the streets of Peterhead.
These bizarre occurrences all serve to highlight the fundamental problem – too many fishermen chasing too few fish in the waters around our coast.
After years of criticism, the much reviled Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is in the process of being reformed. The green paper on this reform, published on July 13, admitted – I hope in a tone of embarrassment and contrition – that “the policy is not achieving its key objectives”.
The text continued, “fish stocks are overfished, the economic situation of parts of the fleet is fragile despite receiving high levels of subsidies, jobs in the fishing sector are unattractive, and the situation of many coastal communities depending on fisheries is precarious”.
Top stories
Last week our Mr Lochhead met the force behind the CFP reform, Maria Damanaki, the fisheries commissioner, to put over to her his concerns and defend Scotland’s share of the dwindling fish stocks.
Afterwards, the secretary told the world, “I held a very helpful meeting with Ms Damanaki and set out Scottish priorities for reforming an EU fishing policy… We are at a critical crossroads and taking the wrong path now could have very serious consequences for the future of fishing communities in Scotland and the rest of Europe.”
One man’s wrong path is the other guy’s right way forward. The problems have become so complicated now that it seems impossible to channel reform to suit everyone. There will have to be losers.
A key part of the proposed reforms is the abolition of discarding – the dumping at sea of unwanted fish in the catch. From a conservation point of view it makes sense to land everything that is caught, unless the fish has a high chance of swimming away when thrown back in, a remote likelihood in the case of fish that have been squeezed in a packed cod-end.
The problem with that, however, is that having to land everything means a boat will reach its quota far sooner than it did before.
Up to now skippers had to watch their landings to ensure they did not breach the quota regulations. Secret landings over and above the quota have notoriously become known as “black fish”.
As our fishermen now start to campaign against a blanket ban on discards unless quotas are raised, the seeming intractability of achieving a sensible CFP grows stronger. The stage is now set for the phenomenon of “black discarding”.
THERE should never have been a CFP in the first place – or at least not the “C” part. In the early 1980s, however, when the CFP was formulated, it was realised by very few that the evolving technology of fishing vessels, gear and electronics had tipped the balance against sustainable fishing.
Conservation was becoming an issue before many realised it. Ironically, the Icelanders and the Faroese were aware of the problem – hence the Cod Wars.
As a rough guess I would date the beginnings of serious over-fishing in the North Sea to the time of the birth of the CFP. Sticking to the long-established notion that the seas outside the coastal territorial waters of each country should be open to all was already an obsolete point of view.
The North Sea, for example, should have been divided then into zones of interest, just as it was for oil and gas exploitation, with responsibility for conservation resting with each relevant coastal state. I think Mr Lochhead would welcome such a division. In his talk with Ms Damanaki in Brussels, he welcomed the commissioner’s “plans to decentralise fisheries management, but emphasised that this needs to be genuine devolution if we are to move away from micro-management from Brussels – which has been a hallmark of the failed CFP”.
He argued that “Scotland has led Europe in finding solutions that help both the fish stocks and the industry, therefore we have a responsibility to do all we can to help shape new EU policy.
“As the changes in European fisheries policy are decided over the next two years, the commissioner has assured me that Scottish interests would have a key part to play.”
We have to take Ms Damanaki at her word but, whatever her good intentions, we remain to see them put into action.
“I urged her to look at the positive work being undertaken in Scotland, where we have worked with industry on solutions that stop discarded fish being caught in the first place,” said Mr Lochhead. “I have put our approaches forward as a template for tackling the issue across Europe.”
Ian Hudgton, the leader of the SNP in the European Parliament and long in favour of CFP reform, told me back in June that he thought the real debate on the CFP would not start until September.
But the last time I looked at the agenda for the September session, it was not on it. No doubt some debate is going on offstage, and I hope our Scottish members are fighting their corner.
In time we may see some movement towards recognition of zones of interest, so that we win greater control over our own fishing. We have to hope that it is not too late for the fish.