Fishing Quota and Brexit

The Fisheries Bill is now making its way through the UK parliament, having been introduced in the House of Lords.

In the House of Commons the former UK Environment Secretary

Theresa Villiers said:

“This new bill takes back control of our waters, enabling the UK to

create a sustainable, profitable fishing industry for our coastal

communities, while securing the long term health of British fisheries.

Leaving the EU’s failed common fisheries policies is one of the most

important benefits of Brexit. It means we can create a fairer system.”

Former UK Fisheries Minister and now UK Environment Secretary George Eustice said:

“The Fisheries Bill gives us the powers to implement our own independent fisheries policy, improve our marine habitats and make decisions based on the health of our fish stocks not vested interests.

For many people in coastal communities, taking back control and leaving the Common Fisheries Policy is at the heart of getting Brexit done, and this Bill delivers for the environment, fishermen and the Union.”

Strong words, but here is Lord  Gardiner, speaking in the House of Lords, sounding much more cautious:

“It creates the powers that the UK needs to operate as an independent coastal state and fulfil our international obligations. From 2021, the UK will be an independent coastal state, able to control who can fish in our waters. We will be responsible for setting annual total allowable catches of fish species within our waters. For stocks that are shared with other coastal states such as the EU and Norway, we will negotiate to agree fishing quotas. Currently, the EU distributes quotas between its member states using a principle called relative stability, which provides a fixed percentage of quota based on fishing patterns from the 1970s. This gives an unfair share of quota to UK fishers, not reflective of what is found in UK waters, and so we will negotiate to move towards a fairer, more scientific method for the allocation of shared stocks.

…Unilateral restriction on access to fishing in the UK EEZ would almost certainly lead to reciprocal restrictions being placed on UK vessels fishing in the EU EEZ. This would also have a profound effect both on the fishing industry in the EU and on the UK fleet that relies on fishing outside the UK EEZ. Some form of mutual access arrangements must therefore be negotiated.

The historic reluctance of Member States to renegotiate the relative stability key suggests that negotiating new quota allocations after Brexit will be difficult. Such difficulty will be accentuated if these negotiations overlap with the wider negotiations on EU withdrawal. The Government could use access to fishing within the UK EEZ as a lever for achieving a better allocation of quotas but must also bear in mind that co-operation will be crucial for the long-term sustainability of stocks.

As an independent coastal state the UK will in principle be able to ‘walk away’ from negotiations with other coastal states if the compromises reached on TACs or quota shares are not aligned to UK interests. Walking away would, by leading to unilateral management of shared stocks, risk undermining the sustainability of fish stocks. It would also invite retaliation in other areas, including trade. Consequently, walking away should be a last resort.

Trade in fish and seafood is essential to the wider seafood industry, which relies heavily on importing raw goods at reduced or zero tariffs for domestic consumption, and on exporting domestic catches and production. Any disruptions to the current 

trading patterns could have profound effects on both the catching and processing sectors. Trade with the EU in fish products will be a key factor to the future success of the UK fishing industry and fish processors. We therefore urge that the fish sector should be included in the Government’s consideration of priorities for a future trading relationship with the EU.”

The Bill has been welcomed by the representatives of the largest fishing interests, including Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, and Elspeth Macdonald, Head of the Scottish Fishermens Federation. Last week both gave evidence in the House of Lords, along with Jeremy Percy, New Under Ten Fishermens Association and Andrew Kuyk, UK Seafood Industry Alliance. 

Of the four witnesses, Ms Macdonald was the most bullish about Brexit, claiming that “getting back control” and “sovereignty” over UK coastal waters would bring enormous benefits to the UK fleet. This was effectively a continuation of what her predecessor Bertie Armstrong was preaching in the years leading up to the Referendum and led to a split in the SFF.

Mr Percy and Mr Kuyk were much less enthusiastic about the “benefits” of Brexit. They confirmed that in the last forty years fishing patterns have greatly changed, as has the distribution of the target fish themselves. In some parts fishers are unable to catch up to their quota, in others they can catch their years allowance in a couple of weeks. To redress this there are proposals to create new quota and share it in ways that reflect current patterns. Doing this will not be  easy and conflict with countless vested interests.

During the hearing Mr Percy read out a prepared statement from the Scottish Creel Fishers Federation, so they were represented by proxy. The statement confirmed their concerns over certification and transportation of live and highly perishable catch. The Committee acknowledged bluntly that this would be a consequence of Brexit and no comfort of any sort was given.

The rest of this post attempts to answer a simple question. We know that most if not all of the smallest members of the fishing fleet, who are of course also the most important for survival of their local communities, are extremely worried about Brexit, but why are the major operators, based in the big North East ports and owning almost all the quota, not equally concerned? 

There’s a lot of mystery about how the ownership of quota is structured and the ownership of the owners themselves, where they are companies and not individuals.

In her evidence Ms Macdonald claimed that the SFF represents 80% of the Scottish fleet, and holding almost all of Scottish quota, which she said is 80% owned by Scottish owners. This ties in with what we already know about the composition of the ownership of the Scottish share of quota, that it’s almost all under the control of a few major families based in the North East. There should be a caveat here: it’s quite possible that some of the Scottish registered boats are owned by limited companies that have in turn foreign shareholders, or shareholders that are in turn companies owned by other interests. It would be a surprise if this were not so.

Mr Deas confirmed that a good part of the remainder of UK quota is no longer owned by British interests. In particular, French and Dutch investors have bought out quota over the years. Perhaps people shaking their fists at Dutch super-trawlers off the coast should be looking closer to home?

World wide fishing quota is created as part of the attempts to conserve fish stocks and share fishing opportunities by way of  permission given to an operator to catch a specified amount of a specified stock in a specified period. Available scientific data is used to work out “total allowable catch” and the result allocated on the basis of traditional fishing activity. 

In the EU it’s been part of the much derided Common Fisheries Policy.  Not all species are included, in fact most of the Scottish West coast fleet is probably fishing for non quota species, such as shellfish.

The original allocation of quota was based on what was known about the distribution of target species and the fishing patterns of the various fleets active in EU waters. Percentages were worked out and then given, without payment, to the fishing boat operators who were active at that time. 

As both the allocation within each member state’s fleet and the subsequent administration were matters for that state it seems that the rules could have required an operator on giving up fishing to surrender its quota, again without payment, in order that it could be reallocated to a new operator entering the industry. Sadly, during that period the UK was under the control of free market, neo-liberal governments which allowed quota, not just for fishing but for other commodities such as milk, to be sold. I suspect that other states took a different approach, which would have made UK quota particularly susceptible to buy-out. 

This problem isn’t just a UK one. Here’s a quote from a Canadian website:

“As it stands right now, British Columbia’s policies are different from anywhere else in Canada or Alaska in that quotas and licenses can be owned by anyone, including large, non-Canadian corporations. We often call those owners “slipper skippers” or “arm-chair fishermen” because they never set foot on a boat. BC quotas and licenses are bought and sold like hedge funds. On average, 70% of the landed value of the catch goes to these shareholders, leaving precious little income for the hard-working people trying to make a living in their coastal communities.”

I attended the Marine Scotland meeting on fishing policy in Oban last July, at which fishermen owners of quota pointed out very forcibly that there are now no longer people in the industry who got their quota for free and that current owners see it as part of their retirement funding. This means that in turn, as has also been pointed out, anyone entering the industry has to buy a share of quota, which may cost as much as the boat itself, finding in effect that the bottom two rungs have been cut off the ladder. The effect, of course, is to concentrate ownership of quota in wealthy people who quite probably don't themselves go to sea.

So, what do the owners of quota know that the rest of us don’t?

I suggest that they are aware that under the European Convention on Human Rights, which has of course absolutely nothing to do with the European Union, the owner of an item of property cannot have it removed without being given due compensation. By accident or design, successive United Kingdom Governments have allowed quota to become precisely that, property that has legal protection.

If this is correct we are likely to see over the next few months a considerable rowing back from extreme “taking back control” positions, perhaps the creation of some new quota to pacify some interests, business as usual for the major players and disaster for much of our West coast fleet.

Post script: for another take on this problem has already highlighted by Greenpeace, see the link here: Unearthed - the Millionaires hoarding UK fishing Rights