Archive for the ‘Fisheries’ Category

Iceland’s path to EU membership may be a rocky one

Monday, July 27th, 2009

I see that the EU Council of Ministers has asked the European Commission to deliver an opinion on Iceland’s application to join the EU, just 10 days after Reykjavik submitted its formal request for membership.  The Swedish presidency wants the report by the end of the year, and foreign minister Carl Bildt has implied that Iceland’s status as an EEA country could speed the process of the application, in contrast to the slow progress for the Balkan applicants.

The Icelanders no doubt remain shell-shocked by the collapse of their banking system and the consequent halving in the value of the krona, and crave the stability of the eurozone, but it strikes me that the path to membership may be far from smooth.  At the end of the process – say in 2011 – lurks a referendum:  by then the mood of the country may have changed.

Fisheries could be a major stumbling block. Seafood accounts for almost half of Iceland’s exports and 10 per cent of its gross domestic product, which is quite something when another chunk of the country’s economy – the banking system –  has disintegrated.  The cod wars of the 1970s, when Iceland extended its territorial limits to 200 miles and the Royal Navy sent frigates to protect British fishing vessels, showed the depth of national feeling on this issue.

Even now international relations on fisheries policy remain poor. I gather for instance that Iceland has been excluded from negotiations on the management of mackerel stocks in the North Atlantic and has therefore opted out of catch allocations. The country is very concerned to rebuild cod stocks, which is a key economic asset.  Stocks may be recovering but there will be intense opposition to surrendering quota to EU fishermen under the common fisheries policy.  Just to add to the sensitivities, Iceland still has a whaling industry.

At least the review of the EU common fisheries policy is timely, with signs that ministers have accepted the need for fundamental change (just as well, as many fish stocks in European waters are on the point of collapse – and see Sarkozy’s change of heart).  However, the fisheries chapter in the Commission’s Iceland report will be one of the most difficult to compose. Could it be the catalyst for the creation of a new fisheries policy, or will it hark back to the disastrous EU policy which has been pursued since 1973?

Becoming part of the eurozone is the big driver for Iceland, but there could be difficult issues here as well, given the level of Iceland’s public debt (about 100 per cent of gdp). For Iceland to qualify for eurozone membership could be an even greater challenge than is faced by the Baltic states and Hungary.

The vote in the Althing to apply for membership was a close run thing – 33 in favour, 28 against – and it would certainly be wrong to underestimate the negotiating difficulties which lie ahead. If the Irish vote “no” on Lisbon then the prospects for any enlargement would be gloomier still.

Meanwhile Britain’s Conservative shadow foreign secretary William Hague continues to inveigh against Lisbon. But whatever you think of his views, he is a consummate speaker. You may like to savour his recent performance in the House of Commons on the possibility of Tony Blair becoming president of the European Council under a ratified Lisbon Treaty. No wonder Gordon Brown needs a holiday!

Posted in Agriculture, Enlargement, Eurozone, Fisheries, Treaty of Lisbon, UK politics | No Comments »

EU fisheries warning on climate change

Monday, April 27th, 2009

If you want a flavour of the political challenges we face in dealing with global climate change, then take a look at European fisheries. It’s a disaster area! We should heed the warnings it sends.

For year after year political expediency has triumphed over the evident need for drastic action to save a vital resource from almost complete destruction. The indisputable need to curb fishing effort and allow the recovery of fish stocks has been consistently defeated by short term pressures.

The European Commission’s recent green paper on European fisheries has a note of desperation about it.  It’s a discussion paper, designed to prepare the way for an incoming Commission to devise a new EU policy by 2012. Its analysis shows that up to now the common fisheries policy has been a complete failure.

It’s been known for more than 30 years that many fish stocks in Europe’s waters are in danger. That now applies to 88 per cent of species. According to scientists nearly a third of those species have dropped below the “sustainability” level at which the stocks could regenerate even if they were now to be effectively protected.

It’s a disgraceful story. Apparently 93 per cent of the cod fished from the North Sea is caught before it can reproduce.  Large quantities of fish are dumped dead into the sea (“discarded”) because quotas have been exceeded. The Commission reckons that the subsidies which several member states give their fishing industries amount to more than the value of the fish which they catch, as well as maintaining a fishing capability which is too great for the resource. Some of us are paying twice, as consumers and taxpayers.

A common policy operating across many jurisdictions ought to be ideal for fisheries. After all, fish can’t read. They don’t recognise national boundaries. They breed in one area and mature in another. Only common action can deal with a major threat to the resource. Yet this common policy has worked in an entirely negative way as ministers vie with each other to defend their quotas in Brussels and hold back from applying strict controls at home.

I know one shouldn’t underestimate the difficulties faced by national governments. They have to confront their fishing constituencies, provoking serious political backlash, disorder and blockaded ports. But surely after 30 years . . .  Paradoxically, every year’s failure to act foreshortens the future of the industry.

The green paper considers a separate policy for coastal fishing. This would apply within the 12 mile limit and would have a strong regional and social element. A policy of much stricter controls would be applied to the deep sea fleet, together with a substantial cut in capacity. This divide-and-rule approach might take off some political pressure from fishing communities, although it is not easy even now to keep the big boats away from relatively rich coastal fisheries – or to keep smaller vessels from deeper waters.

A specific policy for coastal fisheries might have the added benefit of fostering the creation of conservation areas where fishing is banned altogether. Where such areas have been designated in close consultation with local fishermen, for instance in specific areas off the Scottish and Spanish coasts, there has been a significant increase in stocks of many species – an indication that something can be done.

So where should the authority lie for implementing an effective common fisheries policy? The present system of ministerial bidding in the Council has palpably failed. The Commission could maybe do the job through a management committee system, as it suggests in its green paper, and take detailed decisions itself.  The blame for tighter controls could then be laid on “Brussels”, but the Council will be reluctant to delegate power in this way. Another possibility, also suggested by the Commission, is for the fishing industry itself to take more responsibility.

It is clear that something must be done if European consumers are to continue enjoying fish from European waters and indeed if Europe’s  fishing industry is to have any future at all. This is a major challenge of sustainability, a crisis which requires the same sort of political leadership and the courage to confront special interests which will be essential in developing an effective policy on climate change.

Posted in Agriculture, Climate change, Fisheries | No Comments »