There has always been a debate about what is ‘common’ in a fisheries policy.  I remember being quoted the legalese english of the common fisheries policy and Common Market treaties and it always bore out this idea that Scotland and Britain more widely had to ‘give away’ fisheries – as it was now a common policy.

This persists today.  Reform of the CFP is predicated by anti EU arguments that reform cannot alter the common element – its always going to ‘given to the Europeans’ when it was ours before and that was not going to change.

The idea of common fisheries policy is so sullied from all of this semantic argument that it is hard to see how it can ever be explained in terms of fisheries management.  perhaps its not worth trying and one should use a new language, new words and concepts explained without reference to the ‘Common market’

It was with all this in mind I read the news and have been following progress on the unilateral quota ‘allocation’ by Iceland and Faeroe Islands.  Now Iceland is already one third through its self awarded stock quota.  http://xrl.in/5vya

Iceland.  That country held up as a model of fisheries management by nationalists – British or Scottish was indulging in a bit of uncommon behaviour.  But surely they have a right as its in their waters say some? Well, its the same population that at different times are in different waters and have for generations been fished by others.  They take more because -or we do and someone takes less?  There is the core of the problem – as stocks are not capable of being managed solely by national governments without recourse to COMMON FISHERIES agreements or (wait for it…) POLICIES.

Pelagic species such as Mackerel are, I believe, the stocks that are most easily managed.  The lessons of the past in herring management weigh heavy on the collective memory of fisherfolk.  There has long been a desire by all North Sea nations for agreement and that might have come regardless of a CFP.  But the current Iceland issue illustrates how, even after all these years that consensus can break down.

What the CFP has been about is management within protocols and systems, that prevent free-for all fisheries however, imperfectly.

What we should question now, is the circumstances and nationalistic claptrap that overlay fisheries that has allowed the Iceland and Faeroe quota grab and may allow our politicians ‘standing up’ for our fishermen.  We still have to find a way even under a CFP of allowing the management of fisheries in a sustainable way – and this grab is not it.