| Iceland offers lessons for other countries. The essential elements of its policies are to give fishermen rights that offer a reasonable expectation of profitable long-term fishing by encouraging the conservation of stocks. The system is clear, open and fairly simple, and it is well policed. It thus enjoys the respect of fishermen. And it is based, crucially, upon scientists assessments of stocks, not politicians calculations of electoral advantage.
This contrasts with the common fisheries policy of the EU, whose members 88,000 boats together catch about 5m tonnes of fish a year. This puts the EU second only to China as a fishing power. For years, the union has simultaneously discouraged and promoted fishing, even as stocks have declined. Overfishing has intensified and the overcapacity of the fleet a few years ago rose to the point where the number of boats was almost twice the number needed for a sustainable harvest. The EU has offered inducements to those who gave up fishing even as it provided subsidies for such objectives as the “modernisation of national fleets. Modernisation aid supposedly ended in 2005, but the unions fisheries fund, which supports everything from aquaculture and sustainable development to the “adjustment of the fleet, is set to spend 4.3 billion in 2007-13. Spain, the most voracious piscivore and the biggest recipient of aid, will get 1.13 billion. The EUs fisheries policy has long been notorious for its destructiveness, epitomised by the practice it either mandates or encourages of chucking back dead fish that are not big enough or not valuable enough, or just the wrong sort. It is a main reason that Iceland and Norway, two countries serious about the sea, have not joined the club. Just over a year ago the EUs own Court of Auditors drew attention to some of the reasons the policy is so disastrous. The extent of cheating (by fishermen) and lying (often by national governments) was so great that no one really knew the size of the total catch. The states themselves were meant to police the system, but offenders were seldom caught and those who were usually received little or no punishment. Few countries came out well. Off the record, officials described Poland as “bad, Italy “really bad, Spain notorious for hiding fish and using illegal nets, Scotland not much better. No wonder the EUs stocks are 88% overfished, as the European Commission itself now admits. |
| – Tímaritið The Economist fjallaði á þriðjudaginn um muninn á íslenskum sjávarútvegi og hryllingnum sem fiskveiðistefna Evrópusambandsins er. |
T he Economist segir frá íslenskum sjávarútvegi í grein um áramót undir fyrirsögninni „An Icelandic success: A model way to catch and keep fish.“ Þar er íslenskur sjávarútvegur borinn saman við skelfinguna sem hin sameiginlega sjávarútvegsstefna Evrópusambandsins er. Við lesturinn verður það ráðgáta hvernig nokkrum manni dettur í hug að Ísland eigi samleið með Evrópusambandinu umfram fríverslunarsamning á borð við EES samninginn.
Sjávarútvegur er ein mikilvægasta atvinnugrein Íslendinga en hvergi innan Evrópusambandsins nær sjávarútvegur yfir 1% landsframleiðslu. Lýsingar The Economist á sjávarútvegi Evrópusambandsins eru lygasögu líkastar.
| Með Joe Borg hefur Evrópusambandið vissulega fengið sjávarútvegsstjóra sem hefur áhuga á verndun fiskistofnanna en gallarnir eru engu að síður enn til staðar í kerfinu. Vísindum er ýtt til hliðar. Tillögur vísindamanna um leyfilegan hámarksafla eru venjuleg blásnar upp, fyrst af framkvæmdastjórn sambandsins og svo af ráðherrum. Leyfilegur hámarksafli er því oft um 50% hærri en tillögur vísindamanna gera ráð fyrir. Í ofanálag virða gírugir fiskimenn ekki mörkin. Flestir fundir ESB um málið snúast um að þóknast þrýstingi frá einum hagsmunahópi, sjómönnum. Enginn talar máli skattgreiðenda, neytenda eða umhverfisins, hvað þá fiskistofnanna. |
Víðast hvar í ESB nýtur sjávarútvegur mikils ríkisstuðnings og er í raun hluti af félagslegu kerfi fyrir ákveðin byggðarlög. Fiskistofnar eru ofnýttir. Flotinn er alltof stór.
Skynsamleg nýting auðlinda hafsins skiptir sköpum fyrir hagsæld á Íslandi. Með inngöngu Íslands í Evrópusambandið væri þessi auðlindanýting í uppnámi. Sósíalismi Evrópusambandsins myndi fyrr en síðar taka við af þeirri markaðslausn sem Íslendingar hafa dottið niður á.