Coburn sails in murky waters

KEEPING POLITICIANS HONEST

The impact of Brexit on Scotland’s fisheries is a matter of intense debate. The UK Government have agreed to a transition period in which the UK will be part of the Common Fisheries Policy, with quotas likely to remain in place until 2021. Scottish Ukip MEP David Coburn criticised the transition period, arguing it would compromise British efforts to assert control over its waters. In a video on his Facebook page, he said: “If we allow the European fishing fleets to use our waters during this transition period, it means that they will have the right to do that in the future.” But is he correct?

EVIDENCE

OPPOSITION to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) made up a significant part of the campaign to leave the European Union.

Leading Brexit supporters, including Environment Secretary Michael Gove, argued the policy had “devastated the fishing industry” particularly in northeast Scotland.

The CFP is a set of regulations which aim to avoid overfishing and to ensure the profitability and sustainability of fishing industries by striking a balance between fish reproduction and how much fish is caught. It does so by agreeing quotas of fish that each EU nation is allowed to catch.

It is is based on a principle of equal access, meaning EU-registered vessels can access almost any part of EU waters.

The quota for each EU member is primarily based on the amount of fishing they did in the area prior to the adoption of CFP.

The Brexit transition period means the UK will practically continue membership of the CFP until 2021 but without the ability to directly influence is rules.

Coburn’s claim that the transition hands EU vessels the right to fish in future is based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

In the video, he claims: “The UN convention on the law of the sea states that you can either use your territory or lose it. This came in after we joined the EU in 1973, so if we allow the European fleets to use our waters during the transition period, that means they will have the right to use it thereafter.” UNCLOS came into force in 1994 and set out the concept of exclusive economic zones (EEZs). These stretch up to 200 nautical miles from a country’s coastline. Within its EEZ, a country has rights to use marine resources and over energy production such as from from water and wind. Re-asserting control over the UK’s EEZ was a major part of the Leave campaign. The UN law also brought in guidelines for coastal states who share seas and fishing stocks, described as an “obligation to co-operate on their management”. As Coburn states, UNCLOS Article 62 says a coastal country is advised to give other states access to the “surplus of the allowable catch”. But it only applies if the country lacks the capacity to “harvest the entire allowable catch” itself. This does not amount to a situation where a country must use its territory “or lose it”. International law academic Professor Robin Churchill told the House of Lords European Union Committee that the law gives coastal states discretion as to which states it admits into its EEZ.

In exercising this, the coastal state would “take into account … the need to minimise economic dislocation in states whose nationals have habitually fished in the zone”.

EU member states have fished habitually in the UK EEZ long before the transition agreement.

Churchill confirmed there is “no requirement that such habitual fishing must postdate the entry into force of the UN Convention”, as claimed by Coburn.

There is strong political will from the EU to allow European boats to fish in the UK EEZ postBrexit and UNCLOS states the UK must cooperate with other coastal nations over shared stocks.

Some observers have noted the UK’s concession might make it harder to resist calls for continued access after the transition periods.

However, UNCLOS does not mean EU boats will have the right to fish in UK seas in future.