A bit fishy
Together the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy account for the majority of what the EU does. They are a disaster, a fact which even the Pro-EU will acknowledge.
When you have a tragedy of the commons, as has happened with fish, there are two ways out. Privatisation, as the Icelandic people tried and has worked, or Socialisation, as the EU tried and has failed. But it wasn’t just privatisation the did some other things as well, which happen to be the exact opposite of the EU such as banning the practice of throwing away perfectly good fish, a requirement of the CFP.
Discards of usable fish are prohibited and fisheries shall be managed with the aim of decreasing the possibility of such practices.
Also they have set up no catch zones around spawning grounds:
Fishing is prohibited in designated areas or with the use of certain types of fishing gear in order to protect spawning fish and juveniles. Ocean areas are kept under surveillance in order to enable prompt action.
something that the UK might itself try if the new marine bill gets passed and somehow does not fall foul of the fact that fisheries policy is an EU competence and parliament therefore does not have the right to legislate on it. This was in addition to the privatised the fish stocks. This may sound odd as a commenter on Tim Worstalls blog says:
Enclosure is a nice idea, but who is going to tell the fish?
The Icelandic solution to the slippery nature of fish and the difficulty of deep sea fencing was to issue permanent tradable quotas sold at auction rather than the temporary yearly ones of the EU. These quotas are rigerously maintained by both the fishermen themselves, since they are their property, and Icelandic fisheries protection vessels acting as policemen (or rather as how policemen should act but in the UK now don’t).
Should a fisherman own the quota for a certain species in a certain area then he can, if he chooses, let that area go fallow for a year safe in the knowledge that nobody else will have stolen his property or it been allocated to somebody else in the meantime. So when he chooses to exercise it and that because he has allowed the fish population to recover there will be fish enough for him to actually land it.
When you have a tragedy of the commons, as has happened with fish, there are two ways out. Privatisation, as the Icelandic people tried and has worked, or Socialisation, as the EU tried and has failed. But it wasn’t just privatisation the did some other things as well, which happen to be the exact opposite of the EU such as banning the practice of throwing away perfectly good fish, a requirement of the CFP.
Discards of usable fish are prohibited and fisheries shall be managed with the aim of decreasing the possibility of such practices.
Also they have set up no catch zones around spawning grounds:
Fishing is prohibited in designated areas or with the use of certain types of fishing gear in order to protect spawning fish and juveniles. Ocean areas are kept under surveillance in order to enable prompt action.
something that the UK might itself try if the new marine bill gets passed and somehow does not fall foul of the fact that fisheries policy is an EU competence and parliament therefore does not have the right to legislate on it. This was in addition to the privatised the fish stocks. This may sound odd as a commenter on Tim Worstalls blog says:
Enclosure is a nice idea, but who is going to tell the fish?
The Icelandic solution to the slippery nature of fish and the difficulty of deep sea fencing was to issue permanent tradable quotas sold at auction rather than the temporary yearly ones of the EU. These quotas are rigerously maintained by both the fishermen themselves, since they are their property, and Icelandic fisheries protection vessels acting as policemen (or rather as how policemen should act but in the UK now don’t).
Should a fisherman own the quota for a certain species in a certain area then he can, if he chooses, let that area go fallow for a year safe in the knowledge that nobody else will have stolen his property or it been allocated to somebody else in the meantime. So when he chooses to exercise it and that because he has allowed the fish population to recover there will be fish enough for him to actually land it.
posted by chris at 4/03/2007 07:02:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home