DOCSLIB.ORG

EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee Brexit: Fisheries Written and Oral Evidence Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee Brexit: Fisheries Written and Oral Evidence Contents EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee Brexit: Fisheries Written and Oral Evidence Contents Angling Trust — Written Evidence (FBR0013) .................................................................................... 3 Thomas Appleby — Written Evidence (FBR0012) ............................................................................. 9 Bertie Armstrong, Marcus Coleman, Hazel Curtis and Barrie Deas — Oral Evidence (QQ 12 – 21) ............................................................................................................................................................ 21 John Ashworth — Written Evidence (FBR0004).............................................................................. 43 Professor Richard Barnes, Professor Robin Churchill and Dr Bryce Stewart — Oral Evidence (QQ 1 – 11) .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Professor Robin Churchill, Professor Richard Barnes and Dr Bryce Stewart — Oral Evidence (QQ 1 – 11) .............................................................................................................................................. 64 Marcus Coleman, Bertie Armstrong, Hazel Curtis and Barrie Deas — Oral Evidence (QQ 12 – 21) ............................................................................................................................................................ 65 Hazel Curtis, Bertie Armstrong, Marcus Coleman, and Barrie Deas — Oral Evidence (QQ 12 – 21) ...................................................................................................................................................... 66 Barrie Deas, Bertie Armstrong, Marcus Coleman and Hazel Curtis — Oral Evidence (QQ 12 – 21) ............................................................................................................................................................ 67 Geir Ervik, Vidar Landmark and Sigurgeir Thorgeirsson — Oral Evidence (QQ 22 – 31) ..... 68 DEFRA — Written Evidence (FBR0001) ............................................................................................ 91 Fergus Ewing MSP — Written Evidence (FBR0011) ...................................................................... 104 John Farnell—Written Evidence (FBR0005) .................................................................................... 106 Fishing for Leave — Written Evidence (FBR0002)......................................................................... 110 Institute of Economic Affairs — Written Evidence (FBR0014) ................................................... 122 Institute for European Environmental Policy — Written Evidence (FBR0003) ....................... 125 Vidar Landmark, Geir Ervik and Sigurgeir Thorgeirsson — Oral Evidence (QQ 22 – 31) ... 130 Marine Conservation Society — Written Evidence (FBR0006) .................................................. 131 New Economics Foundation — Written Evidence (FBR0007) ................................................... 133 Seafood Industry Alliance — Written Evidence (FBR0008) ......................................................... 148 Dr Bryce Stewart — Supplementary Written Evidence (FBR0015) .......................................... 156 Dr Bryce Stewart, Professor Richard Barnes and Professor Robin Churchill — Oral Evidence (QQ 1 – 11) ............................................................................................................................................ 159 Sigurgeir Thorgeirsson, Geir Ervik and Vidar Landmark— Oral Evidence (QQ 22 – 31) .... 160 UKIP — Written Evidence (FBR0009) .............................................................................................. 161 UK Government — Oral Evidence (QQ 32 – 41) ......................................................................... 164 WWF — Written Evidence (FBR0010) ............................................................................................ 182 2 of 186 Angling Trust — Written Evidence (FBR0013) Angling Trust — Written Evidence (FBR0013) Before the UK can negotiate with the EU on fisheries, it needs to be crystal clear on its objectives and the means by which it intends to obtain those objectives. We suggest that the high level objectives should be: 1. Firstly, to ensure that European Fisheries are well-managed, since poor management in European fisheries leads to sub-optimal results that impact all European countries, including the UK. European fisheries management must strive to “increase the pie”. This involves the UK thinking not just about how fishing opportunities are allocated, but also about how to improve the basic machinery of European fisheries management, for example: • landing reporting, particularly for the U10 fleet, which are notoriously under- reported • effective enforcement • ensuring protection of nursery areas • protecting spawning stocks • work on selectivity/reducing discards • ensuring that subsidies are directed to the most essential projects Habitat protection and conservation zones also play an important part in improving stock levels. The UK needs to consider how it will ensure that progress continues to be made throughout Europe, enforcing and building upon existing law such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 2. Secondly, to get the best deal for the UK from a shared resource. The best deal will maximise the long-term environmental, social and economic benefits accruing to UK society as a whole. This means we must not simply look to maximise the landings allocated in the short term to commercial fishing. Long-term benefits available from improving stocks have often been compromised by politicians misguidedly trying to protect their commercial fishermen’s short-term profits. The UK is now in a stronger position to demand that fishery decisions are focused on long- term maximisation of benefits. Historically, the focus in fisheries management has been on commercial fishing, but studies have shown that recreational fishing use of the same fisheries resource generates far greater environmental, social and economic benefits than commercial fishing. So for those stocks that are currently fished by both commercial fishermen and recreational anglers, for example cod and bass, Brexit is a crucial opportunity to reconsider how the UK can extract the greatest benefit from these stocks. Angling Trust — Written Evidence (FBR0013) Unsustainable fishing techniques are a barrier to maximising benefits from fish stocks. The CFP requires incentives to be provided for sustainable fishing, but to date little or no progress has been made – the UK should require the EU to deliver on this issue. Small scale fishermen using sustainable fishing methods must be given sufficient quota to allow them to survive without having to over-fish non-quota species. The UK needs to think particularly carefully about how it currently influences the decision- making of the EU and how it will be able to influence the EU once Brexit is finalised. For example, where and how often will UK fishery managers meet with their EU counterparts? How will UK fishery managers remain closely involved in decision-making processes if they cannot participate in meetings such as working parties and fishing opportunity meetings? How will stakeholders get their voices heard – will UK stakeholders continue to play a part in Advisory Council meetings? Finally, many of the questions posed below refer to the UK’s ‘national interest’. It would be helpful if this was more clearly defined as the interpretation of what this means (economically, socially, environmentally, politically?) differs and has a very significant bearing on how the questions are answered. 1. Which are the most urgent priorities for the UK’s negotiations with the EU on a future relationship with the EU regarding fisheries and why? Establishing sustainable levels of fishing – and ensuring that the move towards sustainability is maintained for stocks which are currently fished at unsustainable levels. As tempting as it may be for the UK to allocate fishing opportunities unilaterally it is not in the long term national interest of the UK to increase the UK’s fishing opportunities, fish shared stocks at unsustainable levels and undermine the long term objectives of the CFP. a. What should the UK aim to achieve from this negotiation? • Better control over fishing in UK territorial waters. • Maintenance of sustainable fishing limits. • A structure on how to agree fishing opportunities in the future for shared stocks with EU member states. • Maintained access to the common market for fisheries products. • More freedom to decide on management objectives suitable for the UK’s fisheries. • A review of relative stability. 2. Is it in the UKs interest to restrict access to UK waters for foreign vessels? Possibly if the UK is unable to apply its own conservation measures to EU flagged vessels. However, national interest (in respect of access to fish stocks) could be compromised by reciprocal restrictions to other EU MS waters. 4 of 186 Angling Trust — Written Evidence (FBR0013) a. What impact could that have on reciprocal access rights and UK fishermen? Access to EU waters could be denied and UK vessels may be forced to comply with EU and CFP regulations if fishing in waters where reciprocal rights apply. b. Which UK and non-UK Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) are most important to the UK fishing industry and which should the UK prioritise continued access to? 3. Should
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Celebrities As Political Representatives: Explaining the Exchangeability of Celebrity Capital in the Political Field
    Celebrities as Political Representatives: Explaining the Exchangeability of Celebrity Capital in the Political Field Ellen Watts Royal Holloway, University of London Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics 2018 Declaration I, Ellen Watts, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Ellen Watts September 17, 2018. 2 Abstract The ability of celebrities to become influential political actors is evident (Marsh et al., 2010; Street 2004; 2012, West and Orman, 2003; Wheeler, 2013); the process enabling this is not. While Driessens’ (2013) concept of celebrity capital provides a starting point, it remains unclear how celebrity capital is exchanged for political capital. Returning to Street’s (2004) argument that celebrities claim to speak for others provides an opportunity to address this. In this thesis I argue successful exchange is contingent on acceptance of such claims, and contribute an original model for understanding this process. I explore the implicit interconnections between Saward’s (2010) theory of representative claims, and Bourdieu’s (1991) work on political capital and the political field. On this basis, I argue celebrity capital has greater explanatory power in political contexts when fused with Saward’s theory of representative claims. Three qualitative case studies provide demonstrations of this process at work. Contributing to work on how celebrities are evaluated within political and cultural hierarchies (Inthorn and Street, 2011; Marshall, 2014; Mendick et al., 2018; Ribke, 2015; Skeggs and Wood, 2011), I ask which key factors influence this process.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • Iceland's Contested European Policy
    An evolving EU engaging a changing Mediterranean region Jean Monnet Occasional Paper 01/2013 Iceland’s contested European Policy: The Footprint of the Past - A Small and Insular Society by Baldur Thorhallsson Copyright © 2013, Baldur Thorhallsson, University of Malta ISSN 2307-3950 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without any prior written permission from the Institute for European Studies, University of Malta. Publisher: Institute for European Studies, Msida, Malta. The Institute for European Studies The Institute for European Studies is a multi-disciplinary teaching and research Institute at the University of Malta, offering courses in European Studies which fully conform to the Bologna guidelines, including an evening diploma, a bachelor’s degree, a masters and a Ph.D. The Institute also operates a number of Erasmus agreements for staff and student exchanges. Founded in 1992 as the European Documentation and Research Centre (EDRC), the Institute was granted the status of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence in 2004. The Institute is engaged in various research and publication activities in European Integration Studies and is a member of the Trans-European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA), the LISBOAN network, EPERN, EADI, and the two Euro-Mediterranean networks, EuroMeSCo and FEMISE. The Institute is also a member of the Council for European Studies (hosted at Columbia University). The research interests of its staff include comparative politics and history of the European Union (EU); EU institutions; EU external relations and enlargement; small states in the EU; Malta in the EU; Euro-Mediterranean relations; Stability and Growth Pact; economic governance of the euro area; Europe 2020; EU development policies, climate change, international economics, economic causes and consequences of globalisation and EU trade and cohesion policy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of International Fisheries Management Regimes
    Cefas contract report C7372 A review of international fisheries management regimes Authors: Stuart A. Reeves, James B. Bell, Giulia Cambiè, Sarah L. Davie, Paul Dolder, Kieran Hyder, Hugo Pontalier, Zachary Radford & Duncan Vaughan Issue date: 02/08/2018 Cefas Document Control Title: A Review of International Fisheries Management Submitted to: Georgina Karlsson/Charlotte Wicker Date submitted: 02/08/18 Project Manager: Stuart A. Reeves Report compiled by: SAR Quality control by: Defra various & Kieran Hyder Approved by & Kieran Hyder, 8/1/2018 date: Version: 3.5a Version Control History Author Date Comment Version SAR et al. 20/06/17 Compiled from individual 2 chapters SAR et al. 19/07/17 Working version for comment 2.1 SAR et al. 1/09/17 Complete draft for comment 2.2 SAR et al. 21/11/17 Revised to take account of 3.1 comments SAR et al. 12/12/2017 Further revisions in response to 3.2 comments SAR et al. 12/12/2017 Revised structure inc. MRF 3.3 chapter SAR et al. 24/1/2018 Further corrections & enhanced 3.4 exec summary. SAR et al. 26/2/2018 Minor corrections 3.4a SAR et al. 27/7/18 Pre-publication corrections & 3.5 formatting SAR et al. 02/08/18 Fixing minor typos & formatting 3.5a A review of international fisheries management regimes Page i A review of international fisheries management regimes Page ii An international review of fisheries management regimes Authors: Stuart A. Reeves, James B. Bell, Giulia Cambiè, Sarah L. Davie, Paul Dolder, Kieran Hyder, Hugo Pontalier, Zachary Radford and Duncan Vaughan1 Issue date: 02/08/2018 Head office Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK Tel +44 (0) 1502 56 2244 Fax +44 (0) 1502 51 3865 www.cefas.defra.gov.uk Cefas is an executive agency of Defra 1 Contact Address: c/o Natural England, Suite D, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough, PE1 1NG.
    [Show full text]
  • Annexes a to J
    PCR Annexes A-C Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) Post-Consultation Report on the Site for Interim Storage of Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Annexes A to J July 2015 Contents A Consultation Press Release B Consultation Document Map C Exhibition Adverts D Local Workshop Reports E National Workshop Reports F Submissions from Organisations and Elected Representatives G Feedback Forms H Emails and Letters I Advisory Subgroup Reports J Statistical Breakdown Annex A: ISS Consultation Press Release PRESS RELEASE 134/2014 16 October 2014 MoD confirms sites for submarine dismantling consultations Five UK nuclear facilities have been confirmed as potential sites to store waste from decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. A public consultation process will now help to determine which site is selected. The sites, which already hold radioactive materials, are either owned by MOD, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) or industry. They are: • the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire which are owned by MOD and run by AWE plc; • Sellafield in west Cumbria, owned by the NDA; • Chapelcross in Dumfriesshire, owned by the NDA; • Capenhurst in Cheshire, which is run by Capenhurst Nuclear Services. Philip Dunne MP, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology: “When the submarines in the Royal Navy fleet reach the end of their lives we need to dispose of them in a way that is safe, secure and environmentally sound. “This open and transparent public consultation process provides the opportunity to work closely with local communities near to potential sites to listen carefully to their views with the aim of delivering a solution that achieves these objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing for Common Ground: Broadening the Definition of ‘Rights-Based’ Fisheries Management in Iceland’S Westfjords
    Master‘s Thesis Fishing For Common Ground: Broadening the Definition of ‘Rights-based’ Fisheries Management in Iceland’s Westfjords Katie Auth Advisor: Níels Einarsson, Ph.D. University of Akureyri Faculty of Business and Science University Centre of the Westfjords Master of Resource Management: Coastal and Marine Management Ísafjörður, May 2012 2 Supervisory Committee Advisor: Níels Einarsson, Ph.D., Director of the Stefansson Arctic Institute Reader: Gísli Pálsson, Ph. D., Professor of Anthropology at the University of Iceland Program Director: Dagný Arnarsdóttir, MSc. Katie Auth Fishing For Common Ground: Broadening the Definition of ‘Rights-based’ Fisheries Management in Iceland’s Westfjords 45 ECTS thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of a Master of Resource Management degree in Coastal and Marine Management at the University Centre of the Westfjords, Suðurgata 12, 400 Ísafjörður, Iceland Degree accredited by the University of Akureyri, Faculty of Business and Science, Borgir, 600 Akureyri, Iceland Copyright © 2012 Katie Auth All rights reserved Printing: Háskólaprent, Reykjavík, June 2012 3 Declaration I hereby confirm that I am the sole author of this thesis and it is a product of my own academic research. __________________________________________ Student‘s name 4 Abstract Since the 1980s, so-called “rights-based” fisheries management regimes – specifically those designed to apply market forces to problems of inefficiency and overfishing by divvying up fixed, tradable proportions of a total allowable catch among individuals or cooperatives – have become both one of the most widely advocated and most contentious aspects of marine resource management. Iceland, promoted by some as a successful international model of this approach, has been the site – for nearly thirty years – of fierce debate and controversy regarding the system’s effects on regional development, social justice and wealth disparity.
    [Show full text]
  • Boris Johnson
    DEC-01/08 REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION BORIS JOHNSON MAYOR OF LONDON CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY BY JONATHAN GOOLDEN, BA(LAW) SOLICITOR 24th February 2009 SCHEDULE OF EVIDENCE jonathan goolden SOLICITORS PO Box 117 Louth LN11 0WW Tel 0845 370 3117 Fax 0845 370 3118 [email protected] www.goolden.co.uk regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority 1 This page is intentionally blank 2 Schedule of evidence Page Number Description 5 JTG 1 Letter dated 5th December 2008 from Len Duvall to Fiona Ledden, GLA – complaints against Boris Johnson 8 JTG 2 Biography of Boris Johnson 9 JTG 3 Home Secretary’s statement to the House of Commons on Home Office leaks 28 JTG 4 Times article – 29th November 2008 29 JTG 5 Transcript of London Assembly Plenary – 3rd December 2008 47 JTG 6 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee press announcement of inquiry into policing process of Home Office leak inquiries – 11th December 2008 48 JTG 7 Home Affairs Committee – uncorrected transcript of oral evidence – Rt. Hon. Jacqui Smith MP and Sir David Normington – 20th January 2009 75 JTG 8 Home Affairs Committee – uncorrected transcript of oral evidence – Mr. Boris Johnson – 3rd February 2009 88 JTG 9 Home Affairs Committee – uncorrected transcript of oral evidence – AC Robert Quick – 10th February 2009 120 JTG 10 Statement of Len Duvall – 11th February 2009 3 123 JTG 11 Statement of Catherine Crawford – 13th February 2009 127 JTG 12 First Statement of Guto Harri – 10th February 2009 135 JTG 13 Statement of Sir Paul Stephenson – received 19th February 2009
    [Show full text]
  • House of Ice and Cod: the U.S.-Icelandic Alliance Throughout the Cold War
    ABSTRACT HOUSE OF ICE AND COD: THE U.S.-ICELANDIC ALLIANCE THROUGHOUT THE COLD WAR From 1946 to 2006, the Icelandic government made sure to protect their people, their elves, and their cod from foreign powers. However, in a Cold War world, the need for spheres of influence on the part of the United States complicated Iceland’s security. The U.S. foreign policy makers intended to use economic and military coercion to create an alliance with Iceland. Iceland joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and offered an airbase in Keflavík to help the United States’ goal of collective security. The Icelanders and the British fought in three cod wars dragging the United States in to mediate between allies. The question of stationing military personnel and weapons further complicated their relationship. This work uses the range from 1946 to 2006 to show the ways in which two countries dealt with situations involving economics, the military, and the issues of alliance. Also, by showing these situations, one can view how the Cold War was truly a global war where nations large and small were affected in some way. Jeffrey Allen Moosios May 2015 HOUSE OF ICE AND COD: THE US-ICELANDIC ALLIANCE THROUGHOUT THE COLD WAR by Jeffrey Allen Moosios A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History in the College of Social Sciences California State University, Fresno May 2015 APPROVED For the Department of History: We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.
    [Show full text]
  • Iceland's Search for Shelter
    n Fræðigreinar STJÓRNMÁL & STJÓRNSÝSLA A small state in world politics: Iceland’s search for shelter Baldur Thorhallsson, Professor in political science, University of Iceland Abstract The aim of this paper is to determine Iceland’s foreign policy options in relation to shelter theory. Iceland has been seeking political and economic shelter ever since the United States deserted it in 2006, by closing its military base, and in 2008, by refusing to provide it with assistance following its economic collapse. Iceland has made several new security and defence arrangements with its neighbouring states, applied for membership of the European Union and was the first European country to make a free-trade agreement with China. Moreover, the president of Iceland pressed for closer political and economic ties with Russia. Prominent Icelandic politicians frequently claim that Brexit will create a number of opportunities for Iceland and lead to closer cooperation with Britain. However, Iceland has not yet secured shelter of an extent comparable to what it had enjoyed from the United States. In this paper, we will answer questions such as: What does shelter theory tell us about Iceland’s overseas relations with the US, NATO, the EU, Britain, Russia, China, and the Nordic states? Will Iceland receive more reliable shelter provided by multilateral organizations than by a single shelter provider? Keywords: Foreign policy; small states; shelter theory; Iceland. Introduction Iceland has been searching for shelter ever since the US closed its military base in the country in 2006 and refused to provide it with a rescue package following the 2008 economic crash.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
    Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Annual Report 2016–2017 Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Annual Report 2016–2017 Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Presented to Parliament pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 20 December 2017 HC 655 © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at isc.independent.gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us via our webform at isc.independent.gov.uk/contact ISBN 978-1-5286-0168-9 CCS1217631642 12/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT This Report reflects the work of the previous Committee,1 which sat from September 2015 to May 2017: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP (Chair) The Rt. Hon. Richard Benyon MP The Most Hon. the Marquess of Lothian QC PC (from 21 October 2016) The Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Duncan KCMG MP The Rt. Hon. Fiona Mactaggart MP (until 17 July 2016) The Rt. Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fisheries Dimension
    From Membership to Partnership, the EU and its Relations with the UK after Brexit: the Fisheries Dimension Dr Thomas Appleby Associate Professor in Property Law, University of the West of England, Bristol Abstract Fishing in European waters has been a contentious issue since the sixteenth century and was a key factor in the development of the international law of the sea itself. At the time the UK joined the EU and shared its waters with Member State vessels it also lost access to its traditional fishing grounds off Iceland. The Common Fisheries Policy developed a centralised approached based around historic fleet size rather than productivity of Member States’ waters. Controls were centered around technical measures, reduction in capacity and quota. These worked: the collapse of fish stocks was halted and started to recover a little. However many stocks are still potentially illegally allocated beyond scientific levels, and fishing continues unmanaged in the EU’s suite of offshore marine protected areas. The management institutions need greater transparency and stronger adherence to the law. There is scope to build a future relationship between the EU and the UK: the UK and some of its overseas territories needs the EU market, many stocks are shared, and the parties will need to agree on scientific approaches. However, It is likely that the UK is due a greater allocation of stocks than the current system. As we approach the endgame of the Brexit negotiations it is important that both sides reflect that fishing represents less that 0.1% of their economies and over-politicisation of a small sector will not help either party in the context of the larger negotiations.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did the Cod Wars Occur and Why Did Iceland Win Them? a Test of Four Theories
    Why Did the Cod Wars Occur and Why Did Iceland Win Them? A Test of Four Theories Sverrir Steinsson MA Thesis in International Affairs School of Social Sciences June 2015 Why Did the Cod Wars Occur and Why Did Iceland Win Them? A Test of Four Theories Sverrir Steinsson MA Thesis in International Affairs Advisors: Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir and Guðni Th. Jóhannesson Faculty of Political Science School of Social Sciences University of Iceland June 2015 This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International Affairs at the University of Iceland. This thesis cannot be reproduced without the author’s consent. © Sverrir Steinsson 2015 090390-3689 Reykjavík, Iceland 2015 Abstract Few attempts have been made to provide theoretical explanations for the occurrence and outcomes of the Cod Wars. In this thesis, I test hypotheses derived from four IR theories and perspectives on the Cod Wars: the Rationalist Explanations for War perspective, which sees information problems, commitment problems and issue indivisibility as drivers of conflict; Liberal IR theory, which expects democracy, commercial ties, and institutions as pacifying influences; Structural Realism, which expects states to pursue their security interests; and Neoclassical Realism, which expects statesmen’s pursuit of security interests to be distorted by domestic pressures. I find that Liberal and Structuralist Realist expectations were not met, that rational miscalculation and misinformation contributed to the occurrence of the disputes, and Neoclassical Realist expectations were fully met in all of the disputes. Following these tests, I provide a new, structurally informed explanation of the Cod Wars.
    [Show full text]