Written evidence submitted by the South Western Fish Producer Organisation Ltd (FSH0183)
The challenges and opportunities for the UK Fishing Industry following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union
Thank you for asking interested parties to consider certain key questions about UK Fisheries after Brexit.
About SWFPO Ltd:
I am the Chief Executive of the South Western Fish Producer Organisation Ltd, a Mutual Society of Fishing Vessel Owners formed in 1974 under the rules of the Common Market in Fisheries Products.
SWFPO Ltd is one of the “recognised” Fish Producer Organisations that, in the UK is vested by Defra with quota management responsibilities. The responsibilities of the SW Fish PO end after first point of sale of members’ production, but we are very interested in both upstream and downstream employment and businesses that derive their economic wellbeing from a fish catching sector that is vibrant and sustainable.
Before I became CEO of SWFPO in 1989, I spent 2 years in Brixham as the local Fisheries Inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF). My job at that time was to help implement the body of regulations known by then as the Common Fisheries Policy. This involved administration of the UK fisheries quotas, fishing licenses, fishing logbooks, quality and freshness of fish on the fish market etc.
With more than 30 years of experience dealing with all aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy, I am well placed to represent the views of the SWFPO membership to the EFRA Select Committee. The EFRA Committee may also receive submissions from individual members of SWFPO on behalf of their business interests that may reach further than fish catching and production to first point of sale.
SWFPO aspirations for fisheries after Brexit:
The UK is a maritime nation. Fishing and fisheries have played a large role in shaping our nation’s history and culture.
Polls suggest that 92% of UK fishermen backed the “Leave” campaign. Reasons given among others were the excessive bureaucracy of the “centralized”, Brussels-based CFP and the unfairness of 1983 Relative Stability fish quota shares.
The damaging effects of 40 years under EEC and CFP regimes have been felt in many UK fishing communities. Time has not been a healer of deep wounds. One has merely to visit the renowned fishing ports of Grimsby, Lowestoft and Fleetwood to witness terminal decline, with only museums bearing testament to past greatness.
Post-Brexit in March 2019 the UK will become an independent coastal state under United Nations Convention for the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS III). The UK will be obliged to manage her fisheries sustainably within the EEZ.
The UK Government must assert full control of all economic activities occurring within her EEZ from the coast to the 200 miles / median line limits. Fishing opportunities should be infinite under a new regulatory framework that prioritizes British fishing businesses before others.
Under UNCLOS, coastal states and the competent international organisations (EU) are required to cooperate on the conservation and development of living resources in the high seas and in jurisdictional waters adjacent to them. This requirement is even stronger in the case of shared or associated species. Negotiations must be held with a view to taking the necessary measures for the conservation of such living resources.
UK’s EU Exit does not exempt it from the obligation to cooperate with countries with adjacent waters and to regulate its relations with them. That will involve negotiating not only with the EU, but also with the other coastal states with neighbouring waters and with those states with which the EU already has fisheries agreements that the UK will cease to be party to following its withdrawal from the EU.
Through UNCLOS and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the UK will be responsible for co-operating with neighbouring states to sustainably manage shared and trans-boundary stocks.
However, because EEZs were adopted in 1982, before the Relative Stability shares of January 1983 were agreed, so the UK has no legal obligation to recognise those fish quota shares post-Brexit.
The UK legal case for claiming exclusive fishing rights in its EEZ appears robust. As the EU has agreed through Article 50 that “the treaties shall cease to apply”, the EU Common Fisheries Policy and all its laws also will cease.
The UK reverting to international law will see the end of the CFP of ‘equal access to a common resource’ and the ‘relative stability fish quota-shares system’ that divides up resources and causes mass discarding of fish.
The UK has invoked withdrawal from the London Fisheries Convention that will establish an exclusive fishing zone within the 12 miles zones of the UK coasts. This will mean that when the UK leaves the EU it will have full control over access to UK waters. Negotiations with the EU27 will start with a “clean slate” to secure the best possible deal for UK fisheries.
There is no legal basis or obligation under international law to allow any access to British waters post Brexit and the only way we can lose our waters and resources is if the government gives them away again.
During the currency of the Common Fisheries Policy the UK allowed fishermen from other EU nations to enjoy far greater access to waters and resources than were granted to the UK by them. Such inequities must not tarnish the post-Brexit UK fisheries regime.
Although it may make some sense to venture initially into the post-Brexit world of fisheries by continuing to use the same rules and regulations to which we have grown accustomed, we should not be fettered to the past indefinitely.
The riches in UK waters can be exploited in better ways, more sustainably and more profitably in the future, so long as our fisheries managers are unhindered by deals and trades with other nations as has been the case during the years of the common fisheries policy of “equal access to a common resource, without discrimination”.
There are golden opportunities offered by Brexit to provide the British fishing industry and associated ancillary trades with much needed opportunities for growth and renewal. New fishery management rules could be the catalyst to stimulate growth in not only the catching sector, but in fish markets, ship building, repair yards, gear supply etc. Such growth would bring great new employment opportunities and wealth.
We hope that the post-Brexit fisheries regime will be one in which the UK fishing sectors thrives and invests for the long-term future of our natural resources.
Addressing the questions posed by the EFRA Enquiry:
1.1 Cessation of Treaty Obligations:
The UK is signatory to a number of Treaties of the European Union. Many of these have implications that impact upon the fishing industry. There is a very weighty volume of legislation that derives from those Treaties. On the day the UK completes the Article 50 processes for exiting the EU, all such Treaties shall cease to apply. On that date the regulations that take their authority from the Treaties shall also cease to apply.
The EU Common Fisheries Policy and its entire body of legislation (Acquis Communautaire), applicable to the UK, must come to an end, to be replaced by a UK Fisheries Policy.
The UK, being a signatory on UNCLOS III, must immediately take full control of all its resources lying within the Exclusive Economic Zone.
If, before completion of EU exit the government ties its hands to further negotiated fisheries agreements with EU Member States and Third Countries that ignore the terms embodied in UNCLOS III, the SWFPO Ltd would consider its members and the British fishing industry betrayed.
The situation offered by EU exit and delivered by UNCLOS III must be the starting point for the UK government’s new relationship with the UK fishing industry and with other Member States of the EU.
We are very concerned that the vision of a Great Repeal Bill with concurrent embodiment of all existing EU laws into UK parliamentary legislation, would not deliver the above.
Legislating “status quo” would squander this golden opportunity to control our waters and resources, betraying the people who voted in June 2016 to leave the EU.
1.2 Cessation of applicability of judgments of the European Court of Justice:
Also on the day the UK completes the Article 50 processes, Parliamentary sovereignty will be restored and UK laws once again will take precedence over the judgments of the European Court of Justice. Such past judgments of the ECJ as have diminished Parliamentary sovereignty should no longer apply.
For the fishing industry, an early action by the government post-Brexit must be to reinvigorate the nationality provisions of Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 insofar as ownership of British Registered Fishing Vessels must satisfy requirements of genuine and substantial connection with the UK.
All UK registered fishing vessels should bring to the UK government appropriate tax revenues and they should support local service industries. There should be no doubt in future that British fish is caught by British fishing vessels for the benefit of the flag state.
The government should revisit the allocation of fish quota granted to operators of British Registered fishing vessels that fail the tests of genuine and substantial connection with the UK. The government should restore these quota allocations to those fishing businesses and their vessels having genuine and substantial connection to the UK.
If the Great Repeal Bill or government policy post-EU exit requires that all preceding judgments of the ECJ stand, then this opportunity also would be squandered.
1.3 Access to the market in Fish and Fisheries Products:
SWFPO Ltd recognises that its members must not lose access to markets arising from the terms of our EU exit.
During the negotiations of UK terms of exit from the EU, the UK team must, of course concentrate on achieving the best possible outcome. The mineral wealth and the living resources in and under UK’s EEZ are as important as our human resources whose value must be maximised for the long-term future.
Once we have exited the EU and notwithstanding the provisions of UNCLOS III, it may be appropriate to negotiate with some EU nations to facilitate access to their markets and exchange some access to international waters of UK’s EEZ beyond the 12 miles territorial seas. Such terms must, of course be equitable to fishermen of both nations. Reciprocity is essential and key to any agreements.
Access to the UK waters and resources within our 12 miles territorial seas should not be included.
For SWFPO members, access to French EEZ waters is a priority, as is access to all markets. Suitable reciprocal and equitable agreements must be negotiated and secured.
There must be scope for Technical Conservation measures to apply differentially in the UK 12 miles zone compared to those applicable within international waters of the UK and EU EEZs.
For reasons of good order and to ensure seamless transition from the EU CFP to a UK Fisheries Policy that includes provisions for the market in fish and fisheries products, the government should take steps to give recognised UK Fish Producer Organisations legal standing in the UK. They have this under the EU laws of the CFP and CMO, but similar status does not yet exist in the UK.
1.4 Fish Quotas and the future allocation system:
On the day of our EU exit, the UK will leave behind the constraints of Relative Stability Quota Shares of the Total Allowable Catches.
However, SWFPO Ltd accepts the need to fish responsibly within the Maximum Sustainable Yields, as established by ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, a non-EU body of fisheries scientists that is based in Denmark.
For stocks located primarily in UK waters and where there is headroom between historic utilisation of quotas and MSY, the UK should regain the surplus for the use of its own fishing fleets, as provided for in UNCLOS III.
2.1 New fishing opportunities and limits:
The UK Government must address the expectations of its fishing industry to have better chances to thrive. The UK will continue to meet its obligations to fish within sustainable limits, as advised by ICES and the EU27 will do likewise. Thus there will be losers who, in the past have done well by the TAC and quota system. The UK must not be shy in setting catch limits for its fleet that redress the balance and resolve inequities of the past.
2.2 The export trade of fish and fish products to the EU and beyond:
SWFPO is aware of the headline UK positions about EU exit. The UK will leave the single market and the customs union. The UK will leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The UK will take back control of immigration. The UK will do our own trade deals with third countries. However, the UK still wants the freest possible terms of trade with the EU27 and beyond, enjoying the same frictionless borders as now.
SWFPO also would like negotiators to ensure that the trade in UK fish and fisheries products remains free from tariff and non-tariff barriers to the customers within the EU27 and to the customers in non-EU countries. WTO and 3rd country rules truly represent the worst case scenarios that must be avoided.
Fish is a perishable commodity and great economic damage could be done to businesses and to reputations if products are spoiled on the routes to destinations because of unnecessary levels of post-Brexit bureaucracy.
Fish trade is, of course a 2-way business and we import more fish than we export, so it should not be difficult to ensure imports to the UK from the EU27 are treated to the same (zero) tariff and non-tariff barriers.
Landing fish directly into any of the EU27 coastal states is not an option for the many UK fishing vessel owners who are based remotely from the destination markets of the products they catch. Remoteness has long been recognised as a weakness in the trade of fish and fisheries products. For those market reasons, the fishing industry has been a recipient of state and EU aid for the whole period of UK membership of the EEC and EU. UK Government must recognise that provision must be made in future post-Brexit budgets for aid to be available to support the transition to the riches that await businesses wishing to invest in the fishing industry of the 2020s, 2030s and beyond.
Brexit offers the opportunity to re-think governance, to improve transparency, to respond better to stakeholders and to strengthen environmental protection.
Post-Brexit in March 2019 the UK will become an independent coastal state under UNCLOS. The UK will be obliged to manage her fisheries sustainably within the EEZ.
Under UNCLOS, coastal states and the competent international organisations (EU) are required to cooperate on the conservation and development of living resources in the high seas and in jurisdictional waters adjacent to them. This requirement is even stronger in the case of shared or associated species. Negotiations must be held with a view to taking the necessary measures for the conservation of such living resources.
UK’s EU Exit does not exempt it from the obligation to cooperate with countries with adjacent waters and to regulate its relations with them. That will involve negotiating not only with the EU, but also with the other coastal states with neighbouring waters and with those states with which the EU already has fisheries agreements that the UK will cease to be party to following its withdrawal from the EU.
Through UNCLOS and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the UK will be responsible for co-operating with neighbouring states to sustainably manage shared and trans-boundary stocks.
It is very important that the growth in fish stocks and green shoots of reinvestment in fishing witnessed over recent years is not jeopardized or reversed by the UK acting irresponsibly. Simply to embody the regulations of the CFP into domestic legislation would be such an act of folly.
The UK Government must take this opportunity to manage our fish stocks better. The fish discards Landing Obligation is probably one of the best (or worst!) examples of a policy with no possibility of outcome based on objective. Quite clearly a knee-jerk policy created in determined haste with no regard for practicalities of fishing or regard for the fish that have been condemned to die needlessly. Such unintended consequences might have been avoided if the Commission had listened.
If the UK Government can do no better, there truly is little hope. The new UK Fisheries Policy must learn from the flaws of the CFP that have been evidenced and are the subjects of many learned papers.
UK fisheries can be well managed sustainably, but the natural world has a habit of confounding human expectations. UK fisheries managers must learn to be flexible and adaptable to rapid changes as soon as they are observed. They must learn to be visionary, responsive and they should have instruments at their disposal that are flexible and suited to an independent coastal state fisheries management regime.
Negotiators should ensure that the trade in UK fish and fisheries products remains free from tariff and non-tariff barriers to the customers within the EU27 and to the customers in non-EU countries. WTO and 3rd country rules truly are the worst case scenarios that must be avoided.
Fish trade is, of course a 2-way business and we import more fish than we export, so we must ensure imports to the UK from the EU27 are treated to the same (zero) tariff and non-tariff barriers.
Fish is a perishable commodity and great economic damage could be done to businesses and to reputations if products are spoiled on the routes to destinations because of unnecessary levels of post-Brexit bureaucracy.
The devolution settlement has not been particularly beneficial for the UK fishing industry. Although the UK is represented still by one Minister insofar as negotiations in Brussels at Fisheries Council meetings is concerned, the industry has to contend with meeting and lobbying 4 separate Departments, plus “Island” administrations for Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
There have been a number of “Fisheries Concordats” between the UK constituent nations. Their fitness for purpose has not been tested, but for sure there will be a real need for a new Concordat to suit the new UK Fisheries Policy, post-Brexit.
The new, post-Brexit “Concordat” should be drafted with guidance by industry leaders to ensure risks of damaging decision-making in the future are minimized.
November 2017