SofteningTheBlow

FISHERIESThis kind of flexibility is something the NFFO can pushfor in the RACs, but might be much harder to achieve ifa future agreement is established according to differentprinciples.Cooperation on the seasI asked what the best arrangement would be after aBritish exit: would we need to try to get a specific opt-infor the CFP? Were there other models for multi-countrywaters management?‘That’s another $64,000 dollar question. If the UK left theEU, I cannot see politically a great deal of support for opting into the CFP. It’s too often held up as an example of the problems ofthe EU, of how poorly managed it is. That’s despite the fact thatstocks are improving and there’s improved governance – movingaway from the top-down command-and-control method we usedto see – but we still have yet to see how [the new balance]works out. So I can’t see a simple opt-in being favoured withinthe fishing industry [and implicitly, not outside it either].This is very much an ‘it depends’ question.‘What is certain is that there’ll definitely be a need for somekind of bilateral agreements between the UK, the EU and Norway.We already have EU/Norway bilateral agreements for mackerel,herring, cod, haddock and plaice – they’re all jointly managed,representatives sit down together and quotas are set jointly, andthere are attempts to harmonise technical measurements [i.e. ofTACs, to improve information sharing.]‘So you’d have to sit down with the EU, with those countries[whose waters British vessels fish, and who fish formerlyBritish waters], or consider a trilateral with the EU andNorway, that’s certainly one option. There is precedent for thisin the Baltic Sea, when Sweden was outside the EU.’‘I think the aspiration would be to move away from thetop-down command-and-control model, which didn’t properlyconsult stakeholders enough and acted in a way that was too· 31 ·