Saving Seafood

UK to withdraw from 50-year international fisheries arrangement

July 5, 2017 — A convention that allows foreign countries access to fish waters surrounding the United Kingdom will be terminated within two years, the U.K. government has declared.

As part of the process to prepare the country for leaving the EU, the government will officially begin withdrawal from the London Fisheries Convention this week, confirmed Environment Secretary Michael Gove.

The convention, signed in 1964 before the United Kingdom joined the EU, allows vessels from five European countries – France, Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands – to fish within six and 12 nautical miles of the U.K. coastline. It sits alongside the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which allows all European vessels access between 12 and 200 nautical miles of the country and sets quotas for how much fish each nation can catch.

Those members signed up to the convention will be notified this week, triggering a two-year withdrawal period.

“Leaving the London Fisheries Convention is an important moment as we take back control of our fishing policy. It means for the first time in more than 50 years we will be able to decide who can access our waters,” said Gove.

“This is an historic first step towards building a new domestic fishing policy as we leave the European Union – one which leads to a more competitive, profitable and sustainable industry for the whole of the U.K.”

As announced in the recent Queen’s Speech, the government will introduce a new Fisheries Bill to control access to U.K. waters and set fishing quotas. Starting this summer, there will be a period of engagement on the bill with the devolved administrations, fishermen, trade organizations, fish processors and the public to deliver a deal that works for country.

Barrie Deas, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organizations (NFFO), welcomed the announcement that the London Fisheries Convention would be brought to a close, saying it was “an important part of establishing the U.K. as an independent coastal state with sovereignty over its own exclusive economic zone.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

A spat about seafood shows the compromises that Brexit will force

July 5, 2017 — Britain’s fishing industry is a tiddler, contributing less than 0.1% of GDP. But the island nation has great affection for its fleet. During last year’s Brexit referendum campaign, a flotilla of trawlermen steamed up the Thames to protest against European Union fishing quotas. On July 2nd Michael Gove, the Brexiteer environment secretary (who claims that his father’s Aberdeen fish business was sunk by EU rules), announced that Britain would “take back control” of its waters by unilaterally withdrawing from an international fishing treaty.

Gutting such agreements is strongly supported by coastal communities. The pro-Brexit press cheered Mr Gove’s bold announcement. But landing a new deal for British fishermen will be legally complex, expensive to enforce, oblige Britain to observe European rules that it has had no hand in setting and, most likely, leave its businesses and consumers worse off than before. It is, in other words, a case study of the Brexit negotiations as a whole.

The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was drawn up before Britain joined, to its disadvantage. But membership has allowed Britain to improve the policy. Countries’ quotas are now set on a basis that is more scientific than political. Unwanted fish can no longer be discarded at sea, which has helped to reverse the depletion of stocks.

Unpicking decades of tangled legal agreements will be harder than it looks. Mr Gove has initiated Britain’s withdrawal from the London Fisheries Convention. But Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s Brexit negotiator, argues that this 1964 agreement has since been superseded by the CFP. Regardless of these conventions, foreign fishermen may claim historic fishing rights going back decades or even centuries. Many of them have set up units in Britain to buy quotas from British fishermen. Unless the government overturns these property rights by decree, it may face a large compensation bill.

Read the full story at The Economist